On an individual level, perhaps, but on a national level land is held by the nation that can and is willing to protect it. The world has been governed that way forever, especially outside the West. It's not nice, but it's the truth. Native Americans don't hold the land in the US because they lost it through conquest. The Jews hold Israel through conquest. They also lost it through conquest centuries and millennia ago on several occasions. It happens, and it's the rule throughout history - not the exception.
First off, I think we agree on a lot of the underlying facts and principles. Interesting that arrive at different conclusions about what actions should be taken.
My problem with some of the conclusions above are why you believe ethics or morality differs based on the number of humans acting. My thoughts on property rights is a classical argument based on natural law/natural rights. This is what America appealed to in the Declaration Of Independence so I don't think they only apply to individuals. It doesn't make logical sense to say a group of people should do something that one person shouldn't. Moral action is moral action. The rest of your paragraph follows the is-ought fallacy. I agree that people throughout history take over land by force and hold it. That is a statement of what "is". But it doesn't describe what "ought" to be. What ought to happen is for people treat each other ethically and morally. Otherwise, there is no right or wrong there is just power. That is a leftist belief. There is no objective reality. There is only the facts of what one group of people can impose on another one by violence. It justifies theft and robbery. It also justifies every war and even slavery.
As an act of benevolence, should the conquering people make concessions to the conquered people to promote peace and reconciliation? Oftentimes, yes. I'm for letting Native Americans be largely independent on their reservations, helping them out from time to time, and having good relations with them. However, if Native Americans were installing violent leaders who wanted to retake the continental United States and were murdering US citizens to do it, that would be the end of my benevolence. I'd want the killers dead, and I'd want everyone who supports them dead or beaten into submission and then reeducated.
Now you go back to talking about what ought to happen as opposed to what is. Even before acts of benevolence, the victims are owed some level of space to live their lives. Now we go back to natural rights. It isn't practical to undo conquests of land. It isn't even moral to do so as time goes by. However, if the US government was continuing to violate Indian rights while they are on the reservations they have a right of self defense. That doesn't mean attacking innocent US civilians. But it does mean that both groups have a right even if only one side has the power to protect those rights. Then support goes back to my previous discussion of what supporting actions can legitimately equate to crimes.
Rhetorically, you're not for tolerating it, but practically, you are.
This is rather silly, saying I don't agree with 20:1 ratios of retribution, killing your own civilian hostages, and indiscriminately killing children means I practically tolerate terrorism. As if the only way to respond is to do all those things. In fact this kind of response produces more of the thing you claim you don't tolerate, whereas my preference is from counter-insurgency types of ideas.
Israel is a productive nation that trades with the US and the Western world. We benefit from them economically, politically, and militarily. It largely respects Western values and usually has our back in the UN and in other global contexts. I would be far more indifferent to them if they did not. If they were destroyed and the Palestinians took control of the area, it would basically turn into Libya or Somalia.
Of course. I believe in the goodness of free trade, but I think you are missing all the ways that the state of Israel is a burden to us. Economically, the US gives them billions of dollars a year. That is negative. Politically, they lobby the US government to do prioritize doing things for Israel over America. Militarily, we give them money and set up bases in the ME to protect their interests. What has their military actually done to help Americans? I don't know of anything.
And American Muslims are not like Muslims in Middle East or even in Europe. American Muslims are largely of the aristocratic classes of the Islamic world who came to the US for economic opportunity. They got visas, flew to the US on a plane, went to college, and became professionals - all of which took money and connections. They go to mosque, but they largely "play ball" and respect Western values. The Muslims in the Middle East (and to a lesser but still significant extent, Europe) are uneducated and broke-*** poor. They're like American Muslims like an illiterate lettuce picker in Tijuana is like a Mexico City brain surgeon.
Can't trust those poor people I guess. None of them want to make better lives for themselves, own a business, and raise their kids. We can only trust those Western educated, wealthy Muslims like Osama Bin Laden. Oh wait...