The Flawed Analogy Between Native Americans and Palestinians

That argument, “If you’re saying Palestinians should have a right of return, then why not argue the same for Native Indians?” is a textbook example of false equivalence, rhetorical distraction, and historical illiteracy.

The most immediate flaw is the time gap. The Palestinian right of return concerns events that are still within living memory. Many Palestinians who were expelled in 1948 or 1967 are still alive or are first-generation descendants of refugees with preserved land deeds, family homes, and continuous cultural, linguistic, and social ties to specific villages. The Nakba is not ancient history; it’s a living, ongoing displacement.

In contrast, most Native American expulsions happened hundreds of years ago. The social, demographic, and legal landscape has changed drastically in the intervening centuries. To conflate the two is to erase the difference between living political claims and historical grievances.

Palestinian displacement is not a closed chapter; it is a continuing process of land confiscation, settlement expansion, home demolitions, and statelessness. Refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank are still denied basic rights and citizenship because their displacement is not over.

The Native American case, while full of enduring injustice, is largely historical in terms of land seizures and mass expulsions. There is no current, active military or political project forcibly displacing Native Americans to expand a settler population, unlike in Palestine.

Ironically, the comparison falls apart even more when you realize Native Americans do have legally protected land rights in the form of reservations, tribal sovereignty, and federal recognition, however flawed or limited. The U.S. government, albeit inadequately, acknowledges their political status as sovereign nations with treaties and limited land restitution.

Palestinians are denied any form of recognized return, land autonomy, or national sovereignty. They are not being asked to settle for a “reservation,” they’re being denied even the existence of one.

Even if we were to accept that the U.S. has failed in fully compensating or restoring land to Native Americans, this does not justify Israel denying Palestinians their rights. This is the moral equivalent of saying, “Well, I stole something too, so it’s fine if someone else steals.” In no ethical system does the failure to correct one historical injustice justify perpetuating another.

The Palestinian right of return is codified under international law, specifically UN Resolution 194, which explicitly affirms their right to return to their homes. A different set of legal frameworks governs Native American land rights. These are not interchangeable, and invoking one to discredit the other is a cynical attempt to dodge moral responsibility.

This argument is a rhetorical distraction designed to shut down conversations about Palestinian rights while using Native Americans as pawns to justify the continued denial of Palestinian return.

Moreover, many Native American communities are not actively seeking to repopulate and reclaim their ancestral lands en masse; many have adapted to current realities while still preserving cultural identities and seeking reparations. In contrast, Palestinians are overwhelmingly demanding the right to return to the exact homes and lands from which they or their immediate families were expelled.

The will, the demand, and the logistical claim are all still present and pressing.

In summary, this argument doesn’t refute the Palestinian right of return; it simply attempts to muddy the waters through intellectual laziness, moral relativism, and rhetorical sleight of hand. It’s like telling a man who’s being robbed right now that others were also robbed centuries ago, so he should just accept it and move on. It’s not logic; it’s evasion disguised as argument.