Sure, it is not like Islam is an expansionist military ideology that, since the time of Mohammad himself, through the Sultans, to Al-Baghdadi, has constantly tried to conquer and convert by force everyone around them.
If you would like to discuss the history of the ME region I would be happy to oblige; however, if you want to accuse Islam of excess use of force then you'll have to make the case that they were exceptionally bloodthirsty at any point in time, and in order to do that you'll need to look at the context: see what everybody else was doing at the time. Compare behaviors.
When Muhammid's army first encountered the West in February of 634 about 50 miles south west of Jerusalem, the Roman army was a shambles They had been in at war Persia for the last thirty years; and Empire had been strained to the breaking point. The Army disbanded after the Persian Army had collapsed. In the meantime, the empire had come under attack from hordes of Avars from the east who were one of the toughest tribal groups the Romans had ever encountered. In normal times, the Roman Army would have run roughshod over the Muslims at Dathin, Bosra and Yarmouk; but the Roman army in 634 was exhausted. So Muhammad's army won and the Romans never recovered.
Whatever else you say about Muhammad, you have to give him credit for having great luck. He marched out of the desert just at the time when the Roman and Persian armies had destroyed each other. He also had the good luck to find that the Romans had betrayed all their would be allies in the region notably, the Arabic tribe of Ghassnids and the Jewish communities. The Roman emperor Heraclius had recently conducted "a general massacre of the Jewish population" so they welcomed the Muslims. The Ghassnids had suffered severe religious persecution from Constantinople. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_re ... _Heraclius
I don't want to make too much hay about Heraclius' massacre of the Jewish population, because that was really a small blip in the behavior of the Roman Empire over the prior several hundred years, I can go into detail if you want to hear some of it.
But the point is that the Muslims of the seventh century were no more bloodthirsty than anyone else anywhere in that historical era.
We can examine any period in history and compare the behavior of the Islamic world with the non-Islamic world and I'm sure it will turn out about the same. Remember, we're going to have to account for things like the Napoleon, The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and such, there are some pretty nasty historical periods in western history, I can't imagine you'll actually find a period where the Muslims were more militant or whatever than the west.
The entire number of Arabs killed by Israel in its 70 year history, most of them soldiers in a regular army trying to wipe them off the map or terrorists attempting to do the same by different means, would be considered a good month in Syria.
If your going to tabulate the casualties created by the Zionists vs the Palestinians, your going to have to go back farther than the 1948 war; you'll need to take into account activities that have been taking place continuously since about 1880. You're going to have to balance Palestinian behavior against actions taken by many Zionist militant groups including the earliest, the Bar-Giora, who had a historically inaccurate and quite jingoistic slogan: "In fire and blood did Judea fall; in blood and fire Judea shall rise" (this was circa 1907, before the Palestinians even understood that the "refugees" weren't really refugees, they were settlers on a mission of infiltration and conquest.) Later came Vladimir Jabotinsky et al.
All of Israel's wars combined .............................
We'll soon see if you are capable of discussing the actual history of the events you seem to be interested in.