I am a native American (Cherokee) and your claims are way way to general. In the East the Indians had full rights to their land but they and the Europeans always began well enough but the mutual distrust would not allow the slightest mistake and eventually it would erupt into conflict. Sometimes the Indians were at fault and sometimes the White's but the East is the only place where the Indians had a good argument for their repossession of the land. In the mid west (the classic Indian wars) the Indians that occupied the land had only been there a short time before the Whites arrived. They had butchered and massacred their fellow Indians buy the thousands and taken the land. The Sioux for example killed off something like 6 tribes for the Dakota's. The entire civilization's were war like. The greatest possible accomplishment for a young man was to touch an enemy in war. They lived to fight and were far more savage than the Europeans. The only legitimate complaint available to the mid west Indians were that whites were far better at taking land than they were and that is saying something. The whites unlike the Sioux, Apache, Arapaho, Arikara, Pawnee, etc did not offer anything for the lands they took from their neighbors and considered theft (especially horses) a virtue. The south western Indian and Indian Mexican mixed tribes almost wiped out the agriculturally based Indian that actually had the rights to the land. Actually I am getting way off topic and this requires far more explanation than I have time for but it in no way is equal to the internationally granted rights to Israel being given to Israel. There is also no parallel to Palestine's refusal of the land rant they had no right to, to begin with. I would love to get into this but am short on time currently.
