As to the land ownerships, it's pointless to argue who was there first. The ancient Israelites did set up their kingdom there, but were slowly either lost to the native population (be it through violence or religious conversions) or taken off by their conquerors. None of those people nowadays can logically claim lineage to groups which don't even exist anymore. The ancient Israelites are different, both in appearance and customs, than their farflung descendants. Even by the Crusades, the few Jews who were left were either killed off in the crossfire or taken by the Europeans.

That is, however, over 900 years ago now, and is irrelevant. The reason the Jewish people got this piece of land was not because they had any legitimate claim to it, but was because the Western world was faced with a displaced Jewish population, and efforts from the International Zion Congress as well as sympathy from Western governments.

Many people, be it Jewish or European believed Jews Israel should be given a state of their own. Theodore Herzl (an influential Zionist) and other fellow Jews preferred an Israeli state in the Middle-East. To achieve this, he was even granted an audience with the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire at that time, who outstraight refused to grant his request, fearing instability in the region.

Other solutions were thought of by European policy makers (remember, eugenics and nordicism was popular among many of the social elite at this time) to solve the problems with Jews. Antisemitism was present at about every level of politics and life (Dreyfus trial, the pogroms of Eastern Europe). Some suggested that the nation of Poland be brought back on the map, and a certain portion of it be set aside for the Jewish people (Jewish Pale). Some politicians in the UK even suggested that colonies in Africa could be suitable for a mass Jewish resettlement. I believe even some French and British "thinkers" believed Madagascar would have been an ideal location for them.

When the Ottoman Empire fell, Britain had a plan to slowly relocate Jews to the newly created British Palestinian Mandate. They hoped that this would alleviate issues with Jews in Europe, who were beginning to overflow the ghettos and face increasing scapegoating by politicians.

After WWII, the British still ruled over the Palestine as per the mandate. They agreed to move displaced Jews from the Holocaust to Israel, who bolstered the numbers of their kin who had arrived after WW I. The British did not, however, accurately predict the problems they would have as the amount of Israeli settlers began to disturb the delicate balance they had before by gradually introducing the Jewish population.

The British didn't grant independence to the Israeli state. The Jewish settlers as a result waged an organized war of independence behind the scenes against the British, involving bombings and assassinations, spearheaded by groups like Haganah and their more violent offshoots like Igrun and Lehi. Ironically, if you look at these tactics now, we would refer to them as terrorism rather than an "independence movement" with our current standards.

The British were already having issues elsewhere with their colonies (India had just been created and partitioned), and had set the mandate to end. A Palestinian state would be created, while Jerusalem would be an internationally supervised zone by the UN. The Zion Congress agreed to this, the Arabs however, did not, and encouraged their citizens to go to Palestine and destroy the "Jewish scourge".

Now I don't care whether you think the Jews of Europe and America had any legitimate claim on the land, but you can not logically expect people to walk away with out getting pissed after being evicted from their lands. Many of them might have lived there for generations, and they will harbor harsh feelings towards those who did displace them.

The issue ultimately is that both are at fault. It is stupid to think that one is wholly innocent. Israel at least tries to do some peaceful solutions towards this (they have, at least, tried to get rid of their illegal settlements). Some credit must be given to their democratic processes. Unfortunately, Israel is also dominated by a number of nationalists, who after having their hatred towards Arabs solidified by the numerous wars and underground terrorism campaigns, refuse to even coexist with the Arabs. They spread lies about the nature of Arabs (They're all the same, why don't they just go to Syria or Jordan, etc), Islam, and pull some strings with fellow supporters elsewhere to echoe their views in their respective governments and education systems. This is especially prevalent in America I believe, and that is bolstered by the religious movements here.

Arabs are no more innocent though. For what ever reason, the dominant political thought in Arab countries besides Islamic parties tended to be Pan-Arabism, fostered by Mr. Nasser of Egypt in the 50s and 60s. Pan-Arabism was a belief, which Arab revolutionaries said would involve a gradual secularization of the Arab countries and a unified Arab state. There was also a heavy emphasis on Arab ultra-nationalism, and the ideology itself turned into a sort of "Arab Power" type thing, despising everyone but Arabs as inferior. This ideal encouraged Arabs to work against neighbors like the Turks, Kurds, and Iranians. This also encompassed the Jews, who the Arabs were worried would begin to have numbers to form a majority in Palestine.

Even Nasser had some admiration for Hitler (many well-sourced documents support this), hoping he could do the same thing for Arabs as Hitler had planned to do for Germans. Fascists, Nationalist Populists, what ever you want to call them.

Arabs who followed the Nasser viewpoints tended to eventually dominate the politics of Israel's neighbors, and exploited the plight of Palestinians to further their own agendas and keep them in power. Notice that for all their claims of Arab unity, any attempts at a unified state were short lived. They operated with their own agendas in mind- Egypt and Syria had disagreements over who would "rule" over this new Arab state. Iraq, for instance, attempted to take over Jordan during one of the wars. As a result would always get beaten badly by the better equipped and better led Israeli defense force (who, thanks to President Truman of the USA and his successors, were able to hold their ground).

You had nationalists like Moshe Dayan who furthered the "survivalist" mindset of Israelis by calling attention to their victories against overwhelming numbers. Other nutjobs claimed it to be an act of grace from God approving of Israel's existence.

Palestinians, being charged by their own Arab nationalism as well as the struggle to oust their occupiers, form their groups. Yasser Arafat comes out on top with his PLO, and stages increasingly violent terrorism attacks to bring attention to the Palestinian situation, who were forced from their homes and livelihood to make room for Israeli settlers.

Israel is a much safer place than it was in the 1990s. Anyone who paid attention to the news in those days would get constant reminders of the bombings in Jerusalem and elsewhere. The issue now comes from these groups either killing Israeli soldiers, abducting people, or making fatal strikes using mortars and katyushas.

The problem is, really, is that you still have stubborn people on either end. Israeli nationalists and "patriots", like the now brain-dead Ariel Sharon (who was a nutjob and massacred many civilians in his military career. Karma's a bitch). They keep making themselves look like victims and innocent, keep pushing that they deserve the land as it is "rightfully theirs" as well as the pains they received from the Holocaust. Add to this the violence they receive from Palestinian terrorist groups. Does this, however, justify their over-the-top bombings? It is curious that they can do the same exact things to innocent civilians that the Terrorists do to their citizens, despite the outcries of the UN - there are numerous mandates and resolutions AGAINST Israel, which are relatively pointless as the Americans have always had Israel's back.

Palestinians live in closed cities and refugee camps, and the Israeli government has the right to cut off electricity, food, money, and water when ever they need to on the grounds of flushing out the terrorists. If they need to bomb the hell out of them to do so, so be it. They're a friend of the West, and as such have a free reign to do what ever the hell they wish. The Arab governments manipulate this sentiment to continue forming hatred against the Israeli government.

The thing is in the mindset of all this, there are people who want change. There are Palestinians who won't mind co-existing with Israel. There are Israelis, who even have powerful political blocs, who are working against the more aggressive and nationalist elements in the Israeli government, to foster peace instead of violence. They have had some successes, as we've seen the Israeli government make some moves against the illegal settlements and honor, somewhat, their side of the peace agreements.

However, so as long as the same idiots fill the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will keep going. Israel should obviously see that after 40 years, they can't cover their eyes and expect the Arabs to disappear, and the Arabs should see this too. Unfortunately, nationalists foster this feeling of hatred and will stop at nothing to keep it rolling. Considering that it took the Americans nearly 200 years to fully accept Natives (IE: Native cultural programs, no longer a bad thing to claim Native ancestry), this is not going to resolve itself quickly and is being compounded by nationalism and a broader ideological struggle.

Personally, and this is my optimism speaking, I would prefer to two to co-exist rather than giving the land entirely to one or the other. Though others are hellbent that the Palestinians deserve what's coming to them and that Israelis are innocent victims, while the more influential Palestinian organizations want the outstraight destruction of Israel (and this smut is broadcast on their political channels).