freedomforall is to be given credit for correctly reproducing the current progressivista narrative. This narrative differs from fact in many ways. Here is the history:

The large area extending east to Iran, south to Arabia, north to Turkey, the west bounded by the Mediterranean and Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries Land ownership where it existed was in the hands of Turks and in some cases the Eastern Church. There were no nations in that area but many tribes. Jews had maintained a continuous existence there since before the year dot, there were umpteen varieties of Arabs and non-Arab peoples.
When the Ottoman Empire dissolved in 1918, the British and French took over and divided up the area setting up compliant tribal chiefs as kings. One exception was what the British called Palestine. This was a name dating from the Romans, there is no nation or tribe so named. There was no dominant tribe or ruling family, the British intention was to designate part of it as a Jewish self-governing district.
The economy grew with the end of the Ottoman stifling corrupt bureaucracy, more relaxed British rule, and Jewish development especially in agriculture. Arab workers came in from around. Substantial areas of land were bought by Jews from Turkish owners.

Economic progress often has its complainers, here there were two-
1. From the old chieftain class there was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. 2. Seeing an opening to make trouble for the British there was Adolf Hitler. These two met, obvious soul buddies, Hitler saw much in Islam to admire but primarily there was the hatred of Jews (and etc), and the fanaticism.
The result was much German money flowing to whip up antagonism to the British and the Jews. The British tried to be impartial but then (as now) authority leans to those perpetrating violence. Things got worse. Then there was WW2.
At the end of the war, government and economy in all the surrounding now independent states were in a parlous state. The rulers found the usual easy way out - blame someone.
(Nothing has changed.)

ffa is correct- the region has been in constant state of war since then.
The reason is the need of incompetent dictatorship to have enemies so as to divert attention, a basis in a fanatical religion, resentment of success, enmity to capitalism/imperialism/secularism/whatever all come in handy.
Being forced off land did happen, mostly of Arab villagers by invading armies of the neighboring nations. This population described itself by tribe or by religion not by the word Palestinian, that (mostly) did not own the land nor had links with the land or area going back generations - it had two options, remain as a minority in a Jewish nation with good/fair levels of income and rights of all kinds, or go to the surrounding nations. There they were not accepted and herded into camps with poor living standards and no rights except for the violent leadership. Levels of subsidy from Germany, EU, UN, are high, there are few industries- bomb making, rocket launching, but much emotional support from (fake) altruistic westerners. The population growth rate is very high, educational support is in hate literature from the usual sources.

You're welcome to whip out your time machine and go back in time and change things if you want. Anything else is at best backseat driving nearly 80 years after the fact - not to mention it totally ignores that the primary aggressor in these regional conflicts for nearly 1600 years has been Islam - extending to wars among itself. For more on that see Iran vs Iraq in the 70's and 80's or more recently Saudi Arabia vs Iran (drones sabotaging vessels).

It has nothing to do with a group identity whatsoever. It has everything to do with 1) what principles are espoused by a given religion and 2) do their professed adherents actually live according to those principles.

If a Christian were to judge your behavior based on the precepts in the Bible, their only reason for doing so would be to assess whether or not you would make a good Christian. The same would be for any other philosophy, creed, or religion.

Observation: there are a lot of people who call themselves Christians who are really bad at it. Many do not even understand what they profess to believe and others have never even read the Bible. Christians as a general religion have a very high standard they set for themselves and there are few who actually live it day in and day out. I wouldn't worry too much about what a Christian's opinion of you would be. Focus on correct principles and let the chips fall where they may.

Observation: there are a lot of Muslims who are zealots. They believe in their religion - even the women (which boggles my mind). And a certain percentage even go to the extreme range to carry out what their holy book tells them to do. If the general Islamic population was as apathetic about their religion as most Christians are, I wouldn't be too worried. The problem is that they aren't apathetic at all - possibly because one of the major differences between Christians and Muslims lies in the enforcement of religion. If you're a Christian and you don't want to be a Christian, you don't have your ex-Pastor coming to hunt you down with a bunch of his friends intent on murdering you for your heresy. Not so with Muslims.