> Islamic conquests - not Arab.
The Arab Empire's conquests are called both Muslim conquests or Arab conquests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests).
> It’s worth remembering that the longest-lasting Caliphate was the Ottoman Caliphate. As I’ve noted, Islam transcends race and ethnicity.
Yes, but I was talking specifically about the Arab conquests that preceded the Ottoman Empire by centuries. The Arab conquests were in the 7th and 8th centuries. The First Crusade was in the 11th century. The Ottoman conquests were in the 14th century.
> Scholars have acknowledged that mistakes were made by some during these conquests, but such actions were contrary to the core teachings of Islam and have been openly recognized as such.
I'm not talking about religion but about history in response to a statement about the crusades having introduced warfare to the Middle East. Not only is that obviously not even remotely true, but the Arab Empire conquered and colonised the Levant, Maghreb, and Europe's Iberian Peninsula centuries before the crusades. All of this happened a long time ago, no one who was there is alive today, and I'm not trying to sit in judgment. This is just something that happened.
> History will judge it with the same moral clarity and horror as the atrocities committed by a certain German regime during and around the WWII era.
Not everything needs to be compared to the holocaust, nor, for that matter, to the atrocities in Syria this past decade that killed over half a million people and displaced almost 7 million. The atrocities in Palestine are bad enough without being "the same horror" as the killing of 80-90% of Eastern Europe's Jewish population. Nothing justifies mass killings, and each of those atrocities stands on its own.