It's kind of funny, when you think of it. It would be like the Attorney General praising the Mafia for offering to restrain, but not stop, its drug dealing. Illegal conduct is illegal conduct, and scaling back its scope might be an improvement, but certainly doesn't earn praise. ANY Israeli settlements of Palestinian land are crimes, under international law -- and a willful provocation of violence. It would be inappropriate for American officials to praise Israel merely for offering to scale back the scope of its land theft, just as it would be inappropriate to praise Hamas for offering to scale back, but not stop, rocket attacks.

As for the analogy to the seizure of Indian lands, it would make sense if we were having this discussion in the 19th century or before. At that point, Europeans and Americans were in no position to stand in judgment of another country that was using its relative military advantage to steal the land of a weaker people. But this generation of Americans and Europeans are, in fact, in a very good position to criticize, given our unusual restraint in using our military might.

Never before in history has there been a country with as much relative military might as America that has been as restrained in using that might to expand its territory. Our national might puts us on par with the Spanish empire of the 16th century, the British Empire of the 19th century, and Imperial Rome, and yet to the extent we are at all expansionistic, it is only very subtly, rather than through open absorption of other nations. Similarly, the nations of Europe could easily conquer a lot of weaker nations, if they wanted, but, for the most part, they don't, due to a moral rejection of expansionistic war. So, America and Europe are, in fact, in a position to stand in judgment of Israel for its evil behavior. If America seizes Northern Mexico and starts to settle Americans there, we'll lose that moral standing. But I don't see that happening, notwithstanding our military capacity to do so.