It was the Europeans who first assaulted my ancestors lands and then they became Americans, with thier Manifest Destiny, their despoiling of the land, thinking it could be owned.  The Genocide practiced by European and American cultures is without parallel in our history and I can only hope that one day, all cultures will live together honorably.  

Do I want justice for my people, you damn well bet I do.  Do I want the return of my ancestors land, yes, is it realistic, no, but many are beginning to gain some of their former lands back and that is a start.  

The US is a lot of things, both good and bad, but it also a student of European history, so please don't blame all of the misfortune and misery that has been perpetuated upon the Native Populations solely upon the heads of Americans.  Thank you for this opportunity to rant.

"We did not weave the web of life. We are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves". Chief Seattle 1854

Most Indians do not think of land as "property," as Europeans do.  They are more concerned with land rights than with the concept of "we own this land."
However, in European (and hence American) thought, land rights go hand in hand with the concept of property.

When Europeans came to America, not all Indians were immediately driven off their land - especially not in the East, where contact continued for about 200 years before the U.S. government embraced its policy of removal and/or extermination.  So there was time for Indians to absorb the huge changes and formulate their own policies which the Europeans initially agreed to.

In my part of America, there was a longstanding agreement between the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) - who were very powerful - and a succession of European colonists (first the Dutch, then the British).  This agreement was called Guswenta (aka the Two Row Wampum) and formed the basis of several treaties with Dutch and British.  Basically it says that "We, the Iroquois, and you, the Europeans, will have an equal, brother-to-brother relationship.  We won't interfere in your affairs, you won't interfere in ours, and we will allow you to share our land."  (The treaty between the Haudenosaunee and the U.S., the Treaty of Canandaigua, does not explicitly invoke Guswenta but clearly that is the spirit behind it.)

This of course has since been violated many many times, but because Guswenta is such an old principle in this part of the country, it could be that the instinct to share and be reasonable still remains.  

In other areas of the U.S., this may be far more difficult to promote and embrace, because U.S. relations with other nations such as Cherokee or the Plains Indians was always based on other, harsher and more destructive policies.

When considering justice of nationhood or territory, I don't think that it should be only framed in the context you had mentioned. Such a belief would lend support to Hammas in Palestine.

I think it makes sense to take a step back and analyse the current situation and then think of a way to create a policy that is best for each party.

The way you frame this as if I don't give up my house I don't fully support the indigenous peoples of America I think is counter-productive. I could easily reply by asking the same of people in Australia, and if Australians don't give up their homes and move then do they not fully support justice for the indigenous peoples of Australia? I believe these questions should be framed in a constructive manner.

I am all ears on this subject.