Is Israel's treatment of Palestinians similar to the US' treatment of Native Americans since the country's inception?

Put simply, no.

There are three groups of Palestinians at issue historically speaking. There are Palestinians who live as Israeli citizens, Palestinians who live as permanent residents, and Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza. The first group has existed since 1948, the second primarily since 1967, and the third has been under Israeli control since 1967 as well.

To clarify, the first group lived in Israel following its independence, constituting roughly 150,000 people, and was granted citizenship. However, they were kept under a form of martial law until 1966.

The second constitutes primarily Jerusalem Palestinians. These individuals can vote in municipal elections but often choose not to, but cannot vote in national elections. They have the right to apply for citizenship, but few have chosen to historically. They live in the areas of Jerusalem primarily that were left under Israeli control after the 1967 war (East Jerusalem), and have permanent residency status instead when Israel unified Jerusalem through annexation.

The third group came about following the 1967 war. This group has seen a change in political status following the Oslo Accords (particularly Oslo II, in 1995, which set out an interim arrangement, as well as subsequent smaller treaties). This group can vote for elections in the Palestinian Authority, but not in Israeli elections. 90-95% of them live under Palestinian Authority security and civil jurisdiction, while the rest live under Israeli security and jurisdiction. In matters of terrorism, national security, etc., Israel has authority that supersedes the Palestinian Authority's, and when an Israeli is involved in a case in Area B (housing roughly 40% of Palestinians by some counts) then Israel gets jurisdiction over the matter. That's how it was laid out in Oslo II, at any rate.

Already, some basic differences emerge. There is far less constant war and conflict than was the case with Native Americans in early American history, at least at the intensity necessary for comparison. There is also a very different governing structure, based less on ethnicity than on legal and security considerations that resulted from the conflicts leading to Israeli control, as of 1998. Palestinian children are not taken from their parents to be "re-educated" in Israeli households (i.e. what occurred prior to 1978 especially, among Native American families). The history of genocide, discussed here and here is amply different from the experiences of Palestinians as well. There are no Palestinian "reservations" either. While some may choose to draw a comparison between Palestinian semi-sovereignty in Areas A and B, and note their dispersion and separation by parts of Area C, this has never been conceived of as a permanent solution in the way reservations in the United States have been, as evidenced even in Yitzhak Rabin's belief in ceding up to 70-80% of the West Bank to a Palestinian state, and subsequent Israeli or American-made and Israeil-accepted proposals in 2000 and 2001 (skirting the 20 year rule here a bit) that went into forming a cohesive, unbroken Palestinian state.

Similarities are often pointed to, which exist in a variety of conflicts, should one get into the nitty-gritty. For example, many regard Israeli settlements as similar to colonies or settlements that were on formerly Native American land. However, this attempt to draw a similarity ignores the very different legal, sovereign, and historical distinctions between the two. Israeli settlements are built through an extensive permit process, which requires a showing of proof of ownership of the land (or proof of no owners on the land already and a state seizure and sale), and typically are built on unoccupied land under Israeli civil control per agreements signed with the Palestinian Authority. This contrasts with the often violent (or dishonest) methods of American land seizure. Furthermore, the legal web surrounding the issue is significantly different. In some cases, Israel is required to declare certain land state land under international law, due to its requirement to uphold Ottoman and British penal codes that were in place prior to the start of its occupation. Israel does not agree that all relevant laws of occupation apply (though this is an unpopular opinion worldwide), but nevertheless it means that Israeli state seizure of land takes place differently and with different justification than American seizure of Native American land often did. Israel, also unlike the United States, regards land built on without state permission and proof of no ownership etc. as illegal, and has (although sparingly) moved to return the land to its Palestinian owners in cases like these. Furthermore, the extension of settlements into the West Bank perhaps most differs on the question of sovereign ownership entirely; unlike Native Americans, sovereign land ownership has been disputed since the start of the conflict, and has never been held by the Palestinians. While Native Americans indisputably held or lived in land, and sometimes did not have the concept of sovereignty, in many such situations international law would in modern times have dictated (at least post-WWII in particular) that they did indeed have sovereignty of some sort. The concept of Palestinian sovereignty or claim to a right of sovereignty is one that has had mixed acceptance historically, and shifted significantly over the course of the conflict. As a result, the settlements are taking place in a very different legal and political context. Their similarities largely extend to the fact that they are homes being placed in areas where legal sovereignty has not been clarified as in favor of the homebuilders, and to the fact that they are being placed there in an area where the "local" population (local depends on each settlement's location and what one considers local) does not want them there.

Historically speaking, however, I think the differences are quite large. In terms of treatment, I think I've already brought up some examples. I think quality of life can also be mentioned as a significant difference; while Palestinians in Israel have largely modern (if disadvantaged by comparison to Israeli Jews, in a level of difference/status one could perhaps compare to African-Americans in the United States) lives, and the same extends largely to East Jerusalem Palestinians, the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians saw large improvements in quality of life, though not to the extent that Israel itself did. These improvements actually led to significant quiet inside of the West Bank and Gaza for most of 1967-87, as individuals in these areas saw GDP per capita, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, schooling levels, etc. outstrip and improve beyond the level of most of Israel's regional neighbors (i.e. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.). That type of trend has only been possible in more recent times among Native Americans, and does not compare to the vast majority of history regarding US treatment of Native Americans.