Yes, to put it briefly, the situation is not much changed in that respect from earlier periods.

Early Zionists did indeed view themselves as indigenous peoples returning home. Yet at the same time, they sometimes described themselves as colonizing the land, in a way that might appeal to European leaders. The world was not exactly sympathetic to the early Zionist movement, and that led to being rebuffed many, many times over.

Thus, adding the complexity, early Zionists viewed themselves both as indigenous peoples returning to the land and as "colonizers" who were bringing economic wealth, modernity, and benefits to all to the area. And I do truly mean "to all", as many early Zionists were of the belief that Arabs in the area would benefit economically and be happy to have Jews as neighbors. This was one of the early arguments that Herzl, for example, posed in Der Judenstaat:

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfilment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish Question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.

You can see there that there is a juxtaposition: both "historic homeland" and "an outpost of civilization". This was the dichotomy for early Zionists. This poses a relatively unique situation for historical analysis, because there has rarely (perhaps never) been a diaspora so often expelled (though some Jews would always remain in the area) that maintained a sense of peoplehood, a desire to "return" so to speak, and then that did so. I frankly cannot come up with a similar example on that scale, though there may be one out there, and so the juxtaposition is difficult for many to grasp.

It is with this in mind, for example, that Max Nordau in Zionism wrote of "return to Palestine" as being something that Jews would have to prepare, rather than hope would come via miracle. Other Zionists, like Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan, wrote in What Kind of Life in Eretz Yisrael, both of "our homeland" and the need for "our homeland" to be a "progressive and enlightened country", that could not isolate itself. Some, by contrast, viewed the idea that Arab locals would be benefited as silly. They felt this way because they, as Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote, would feel dispossessed no matter how Jews tried to help them, and Jabotinsky believed only an overwhelming military might (an "Iron Wall") could defend Jews. But he, too, believed strongly that this was about return to a homeland, and framed it still as "colonization", because that was the "fad" of the time.

It's also important to note some differences beyond just talk, that go into how things played out. As Benny Morris wrote in Righteous Victims:

These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country, projecting its power beyond the seas or exploiting Third World natural resources. But the settlements of the First Aliyah [late 1800s] were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives. Things changed somewhat with the Second Aliyah [early 1900s].

Thus the basic optics—fair-skinned folks moving to an area with more wealth—were maintained, but the rationales, methods, and the like of "colonization" did not play out as they did in what we typically think of today. And similarly, the people themselves were, as I mentioned, thinking of themselves as native to that land (and I think that is a fair description, based on history and evidence we have now).

Interestingly, all these arguments did gain some support among European gentiles. That is to say, European gentiles often believed that Jews were indigenous, or that they would be an "outpost of civilization", or frequently...both. Thus, you would see Winston Churchill saying:

It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national center and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews, good for the British empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine...They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism.

You can see again the juxtaposition: Jews would be returning to their indigenous homeland and "colonizing" it to improve the living conditions of all there. Herzl himself spoke extensively with European leaders, and with the Turks (more on that later), and recounted the discussions.

Herzl, for example, managed to convince the German Kaiser Wilhelm to support the movement as well. Wilhelm would later write in a letter to his uncle, Grand Duke, thanking him for enlightening him to the Zionist cause:

The fundamental idea of Zionism has always interested me and even aroused my sympathy. I have come to the conclusion that here we have to deal with a question of the most far-reaching importance. Therefore, I have requested that cautious contact should be made with the promoters of this idea. I am willing to grant an audience to a Zionist deputation in Jerusalem on the occasion of our presence there. I am convinced that the settlement of the Holy Land by the wealthy and industrious people of Israel [Volk Israel] will bring unprecedented prosperity and blessings to the Holy Land, which may do much to revive and develop Asia Minor. Such a settlement would bring millions into the purse of the Turks and so gradually help to save the "Sick Man" from bankruptcy. In this way the disagreeable Eastern question would be imperceptibly separated from the Mediterranean...The Turk will recover, getting his money without borrowing, and will be able to build his own highways and railways without foreign companies and then it would not be so easy to dismember Turkey.

You can see the "colonization" point here, but also the point of them being the "people of Israel". There was even a hint of antisemitism in his views, however:

From the point of view of secular Realpolitik, the question cannot be ignored. In view of the gigantic power (very dangerous in a way) of international Jewish capital, would it not be an immense achievement for Germany if the world of the Hebrews looked to her with gratitude? Everywhere the hydra of the most awful anti-Semitism raises its terrible and brutal head, and the Jews, full of anxiety, are ready to leave the countries where they are threatened in order to return to the Holy Land and seek protection and security. I shall intercede with the Sultan.

What's notable here, however, is that the Kaiser was supporting a Jewish statelet under Ottoman rule, more or less, on behalf of both Jewish indigeneity and the economic benefits he believed would come to all. Herzl's arguments coming to fruition, in short.

Continued in a reply to my own comment below.