Americans took the land from the original inhabitants, much as Muslim conquerors took it, or at least control of it, from those who lived there before them. We’ll ignore the fact that Jews had been sparse on the ground in Canaan/Israel/Palestine for 500 years when the Muslims showed up.
Muslims controlled the land continuously, with a partial and brief Crusader intermission, till 1918.
In the late 19th century, Jews began immigrating, but by 1918 were still a very small minority.
30 years later their numbers had grown to the point where they were able to win a war for control of most of the land.
That it’s “really” Jewish land is based, again absent Biblical claims, on the fact that they’d lived there most of 2000 years ago.
On what logical basis do the Jews have valid title because they’re descended from those who lived there 2000 years ago, but Americans, who conquered much of the land they now occupy less than 200 years ago, are not similarly obligated to return the land to the descendants of those who lived there less than 200 years ago?
I have no problem with Jews in control in Israel, I just think claima of valid title because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago are untenable. If this notion is accepted, let’s look around a bit and see what other nations don’t have valid title.
No, the land was not “taken from the original inhabitants”. Historical revisionism does not hold up in the face of facts.
And you are heading into zotworthy territory, or at least total lack of credibility, by comparing the first Americans to Muslim conquerors—a comparison liberals would make. You really want to claim that American “Redskins” (a moniker they took upon themselves) are in dhimmitude, seriously? Do we extract the equivalent of a “jizyah” from them? or attempt to accuse them of blasphemy against God at every turn as an excuse to publicly execute them? They are not guiltless after all themselves, you know.
Never mind the anti-Zionist claptrap being generally zotworthy too.