No. The bible recounts various violent stories of conquest, but violent conquest wasn't exactly the Israelites' unique thing. Even then, the concept of exterminating an ethnic group isn't really present. The objection is entirely religious (kick out people of the wrong religion) or land based (take some land), neither of which involves the attempted killing off of entire ethnic groups.

But even if that weren't the case, the bible's narrative of the conquest is likely not historical. There's no evidence for it archeologically. Even from the bible's narrative, it seems the narrative is exaggerated--groups are entirely kicked out, but then reappear mysteriously soon afterwards. But externally (in archaeology), there's not much record of it, and the groups the Israelites fought are sometimes around for a while.

Note that my dad is probably one of the most reasonable liberal folks you could meet and I'm libertarian but still respect his views because he backs them up any time we debate.....and I lose miserably. Just saying he wouldn't say this out of spite.

You might want to believe that....but this sort of thing is a very common antisemitic trope. If the Holocaust happening is conceded, the follow-up is "well they shouldn't be playing the victim, since they did xyz". Never mind that the xyz is something dubious or so remote as to be irrelevant.