You seem to have a real difficulty understanding the concept of arguing a point.
It does not consist of condemning the point as being something that should not be said, nor of threats to have the other person silenced for daring to say something with which you disagree. You know, I thought these methods were pretty much limited to leftists. I’m sorry to discover this is wrong.
My disagreement with the original post to which I replied was its assumption that the Jews have some sort of inarguable title to the land based on their ancestors having lived there, despite a general absence for almost 2000 years. Do you dispute this fact, or do you just find it irrelevant?
As I said, I have no problem with the Jews having title to their land. They acquired title by the same way almost all title to land has been acquired down the centuries, by conquest.
Canaan/Israel/Palestine has been conquered over the centuries by, among other: Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Jews, Persians again, Romans, Jews again (briefly a couple of times), Romans again, Byzantines, Arabs, Fatimids, various Turkic Muslim groups, Crusaders, Kurds, Mamelukes, Ottomans, British.
The theory of Jewish “ancestral right” to the land is based on all conquests after #6 above for some reason being invalid for transfer of title. We don’t do that for any other nation on earth. If we did, the Slavs would all have to pull out of the Balkans and the Turks return to Central Asia. Not to mention the European daughter societies in the Americas and Australasia.
America was not “taken from the original inhabitants”.
Really. I’m sure that will come as a surprise to the descendants of those who were here when white men arrived. They had the land and now we do, the vast majority of it anyway. How do you think that happened?
To address your second paragraph, which actually (surprise!) has some substantive points.
Never compared American settlers to Muslim conquerors. Though a comparison might not be to American advantage. We didn’t reduce the Indians to dhimmitude, we simply expelled them from their land, those we didn’t kill, and took it for ourselves. I think it’s debatable which is worse.
We don’t force our religion on them, though there were some episodes verging on that in earlier American history, and certainly the Spaniards and Portugese did exactly that in the areas they conquered.
We may not extract jizyah from Indians, but the (mis)management of the BIA over the years has resulted in an enormous net drain of Indian resources (those we left them) into white American hands.
I quite agree Indians were not guiltless in their conflicts with white Americans. In fact, I’m amused by liberals who obsess endlessly over Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, two episodes where American troops committed atrocities somewhat similar to, though much less extreme than, those routinely committed by most tribes every single time they fought us.
The Jews acquired the land of Israel by conquest, then lost it and regained it the same way. Just as Americans took our land by conquest (and a lot of dirty double-dealing).
I prefer my American history straight, without attempting to either whitewash or demonize America. Net/net, I think America has been very good for the world, and I’m proud to be an American.
If I were a Jew, I sure I’d feel the same about Israel and its history. But fake, feel-good history does nobody any good.
Arguing a point does not entail raising falsehoods and bigoted statements. That is what leftists do, as well as claim that said falsehoods are just aught which someone “disagrees with”.
Incidentally, per your “logic”, all of the “redskin” people should evacuate at once to Siberia, where they originated.
The Jews have an inarguable title to the Jewish state in the Levant. That is fact. Any other position is a lie. And you already compared the Founding Fathers to Caliphs, which invalidates you.