Why does the Israeli government act like they don't know that in order to create the country, Palestinians were forced off their land, and that alone is the origin of the conflict and hatred?

Before answering the question, I'd like to state my background because I think it is telling: I have Israeli parents, lived there for many years, and then we left the country. This gave me perspective from both outside and inside Israel. Growing up in a Zionist family, you hear a lot of things and a lot of it is exaggerated and some even deluded-as I'd find out later on. As a Zionist child and teenager who was totally against Palestine, I am now more pro-Palestine (I assume those are the Arabs you are talking about, since they were the ones forced to move when Israel was established): It is obvious the Palestinians have suffered a lot more at the hands of the Israelis than vice versa throughout history. However, I also believe it is too late to go back -- Israel is already home to too many people. There are only two options for the region, really, a secular one-state for two nations or a two-state. Before I answer the question, to address previous answers claiming Palestinians were not forced off their land: While Jews may have legally bought land, etc, there was so much ENCROACHING that it the end, EFFECTIVELY, and in some cases, LITERALLY, Palestinians WERE forced off their land. First, it was due to the British, because of the (illegal, colonialist) British Mandate. The British promised the land to the Arabs, but the British foreign minister, Balfour, also signed a declaration in support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. So when the Mandate comes into play, Jews immigrate to the point where Arabs fear this influx, knowing the intent of the creation of a Jewish state. Here, the encroaching has begun. As Jewish extremism like Lehi and Irgun grew worse, as we all know, the British handed the state over to the UN, who said they'd split it in half-even though Jews were only a minority of the population at the time, and Palestinians were not even a united group, but scattered all over Israel in different villages, meaning they would lose a lot of land they had a personal connection to. So we've already seen a loss of rights and encroaching due to the British allowance of Jewish immigration and THEN, when the British withdrew in 1948, fighting broke out. Threatened by the prospect of potential conflict and the presence of the Arab Liberation Army, the Jews adopt Plan Dalet -- where we see the actual forcing off of Palestinians from their land. Jewish forces took over and occupied 200 Arab villages as part of Plan Dalet. One famous example is what happened at Deir Yessin. This, and Plan Dalet in general, was a total human rights atrocity. Then, after the Jewish state of Israel was announced, the Arab countries attacked and the 1948 war took place-which we all know about. This war caused many Palestinians to flee, and they lost a lot of land-78% of Palestine was now occupied by the Jews. So yes, essentially, they were forced off their land-by a number of different circumstances. The Palestinians who stayed in Israel were ruled over by the army for the next 18 years in their villages. Fast forward to today, and the army is still occupying Palestinian villages -- look at Gaza and the West Bank! This is unfair. And yet, Jewish settlements are being built inside the West Bank, IN SPITE of international laws. This IS, as the question posits, a conflict about LAND RIGHTS. And the person asking the question is VERY right-Jews were given a homeland in the Middle East for CENTURIES. Middle Eastern Jews lived in peace and were well-respected in the  Middle East for centuries-even back to the Achaemenid Empire in 550-330 BC, the Middle Easterners freed us from captivity while the rest of the world, eg Europe, were  less hospitable. (Edit: As user Ralph Levy pointed out in the comments, some of this is misinformed. In the Middle East too, there were a lot of actions against Jews, such as massacres. I apologize for the misrepresentation: I was speaking based on my grandparents' experiences and tales and some (now I understand to be) limited reading that I had done.) My family, who lived in Iraq before immigrating to Israel, were well-integrated into society. (Fun fact: the Iraqi music scene was FULL of Jews, and Jews formed a large part of the bourgeois class). My gran always tells me how her Muslim neighbours invited  her family for Ramadaan, and in return, they were invited for Rosh Hashanah-there was a beautiful harmony. My gran even says she preferred  living in Iraq than in Israel; it was only due to Zionism that  anti-Semitism rose in the Arab world. (Edit: Again, as Ralph Levy pointed out in the comments, it was not all rosy before Zionism -- I apologize for misrepresentation, again, I was speaking based on my extended family's experiences. He adds that Nazi and British propoganda aided the wave of anti-Semitism). I am not justifying this anti-Jewish sentiment with the rise of Zionism  - one should not have had an effect on the other. What happened was an atrocity that caused many Middle Eastern Jews who felt that Arab culture, Arab language, Arab people, Arab food, music etc was their identity, to leave and go to Israel. There, quite frankly, the European Jews treated them like sh*t, anyways. But the point is, we Muslims and Jews can live in peace...and hopefully, we will again. So then, why does the Israeli government not acknowledge all the land issues, or why doesn't Israel as a whole? 1). Religion: Many Jews in Israel really do believe that it doesn't matter that the Palestinians lived in Palestine before the modern immigration of Jews into Palestine. They believe the land was promised to them by god, and that it is not anybody's land to give except god's, so therefore, they have a right to Palestinian land. A good example is the Zionists living in the West Bank right now-those are the extreme Zionists. 2). Zionist brainwashing: This is something that happens. Patriotism in Israel is SO big, so GREAT, that it's almost numbing. For most of my life, I was taught that the Jews had a right to the land and that 'the Arabs' just want us gone 'to the sea' and are seeking our destruction. This 'justifies' the conflict, occupation, etc, and prevents people from seeking out peace. 3) Bitterness left over from Arab-Jewish expulsion: The fact that Arab  Jews were forced to leave has reinforced the idea that Arabs are not our  friends in this day and age and that they don't like us. Again, a false dichotomy -- as if all 'Arabs' are one entity. Palestinians had nothing to do with it. 4) Palestinian Past: The PLO having a past of rejecting Israel's right to  exist and the fact that the Palestinian National Charter has not been  renewed to remove clauses that seem to denounce Israel, is still at the  back of the Israeli mind. Hamas's attacks and the fact that their charter asks for the  obliteration of Israel is also a problem for the Israelis. Even though Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said that the charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons", this is not enough-it is wondered, why can it not be changed? Terrorist  attacks carried out by Fatah also add to the sense of instability (however, note the double-standards: as if Israel itself has not done things that are terror attacks...from the Palestinian perspective, could Israel be trusted? Think about the occupation, etc). Many Israelis are therefore afraid an independent Palestine will simply mean  more attacks and an increase in terrorism. In other words, the sincerity of Palestinian will for peace is doubted, and this leads to Israel not  wanting to pursue peace or independent Palestinian statehood, or at least, that is the official excuse.  However,  this is a double-edged sword: Palestinian militancy in itself is a result of past injustices and current occupation. Therefore, unless both sides let go of the  past and start to see things from the others' perspective, peace will never happen. That is my conclusion. Edit: After a lot more reading to undo ingrained views, I have updated my conclusion a slight bit -- I feel like it is not just about letting the past go, but a lot about Israel accepting the Palestinian right to self-determination and acknowledging the Palestinian right of return as an issue that needs to be resolved.  I feel like they, with the US, have actually been a great hindrance in the peace process with their propositions, which have often overlooked these very important two things. Sorry for this flip-flopping -- I am still in the process of getting educated! Thank you for all the votes and lovely comments thus far!

Part of the problem is that many people believe that the assumption in your question is correct. Much of the land the Jewish settlers occupied in what was to become Israel was actually sold to them by Arab or Turkish landlords in the late 19th and early 20th C. Until the end of WWI, the land was part of the Ottoman Empire. While the Turks were unhappy with Jewish immigration and passed laws to prevent such land sales, they happened anyway. Sometimes the sales were open; sometimes they were through front men. In any event, much of the land was validly purchased with the transfer of deeds of ownership. http://www.amazon.com/Arabs-Zionism-before-World-War/dp/0520039408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353372676&sr=1-1

While people are busily justifying their particular group's ownership of the land, an essential point is all but forgotten. Collective (in this case national) concerns have always and continue to take precedence over individual ones, as in imminent domain. War almost always involves an exchange of land from one entity to another. This is a fact repeated hundreds of times over the centuries, the 20th century expressing the greatest amount of change affecting the greatest number of people in history. Few outside of the region have heard or cared much about the displaced Hindus from Pakistan or Muslims from India, or the numerous tribes redefined as nationalities displaced in Europe through two earth shattering conflagrations, to name just two wide areas. Seen in this context, Israel defending against hostile Arabs within and their armies without is just another of these nationalist conflicts. It is the displaced Arabs who refused to make peace and through that live peacefully as individuals within a Jewish state, with minority Jewish populations living in the neighboring Arab states as they had for milennia. It is these same displaced Arabs, abetted by their handlers in the surrounding Arab states and supported by a wide world community, who refuse to find another place to live as did every other person displaced by war. Although the plea for a 'return to their land' drips of moral imperative, the thin veil of morality covers the greater face of war from which they refuse to desist (as attested too many times in their refusal to make any kind of compromise which would leave Israel safe and intact- and truly at peace). As for questioner's cynical statement regarding Jews' lack of gratitude for past protection from European persecutors (to call them enemies suggests the Jews' ability to even defend against their onslaught of which there was none- even up to the Holocaust during which the Arabs were not so gracious), he fails to acknowledge the equal expulsion of indigenous Jews from the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa. He also fails to acknowledge that Arabs living lawfully in Israel are treated as citizens; this is unlike their treatment in the other Muslim states where they have practically no rights. He further to his great dishonor fails to acknowledge that Israel protects his individual properties, holy sites and right to speak freely even words calling for Israel's destruction, even as a non-citizen. And for those who support his plaintive cry, where are your tears for Tibet, Ethiopia and Sudan? Despite this, I have been and still am willing to make an equitable peace to satisfy the undeserved desires of a continuously aggressive people, if only to reduce and divert military resources to civilian endeavors. The present talks clearly demonstrate this to be a non-starter for compromise does not appear to be in the PA leadership's arsenal. So the best answer I can give to the questioner's plaintive cry is, "Get over it and move out of your self imposed ghetto and make a life in the myriad places where you can - just like millions of people over thousands of years before you have done.

In the first half of 19th century, nobody could buy land. Then it came under Ottoman rule, and John already talked about that... Also one more thing: Arabs sold land themselves to Jews. A good summary would be here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#refPorath: Jewish organizations often offered to purchase the land from the wealthy  owners for more than the actual value of the area. The Jewish land  purchasers paid extraordinarily high prices for the uncultivated and  marsh land. During a visit to Palestine in 1930, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hope_Simpson,  a British politician, noticed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the  land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those  lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound  to pay". It was believed that Jews were paying as much as $1,000 to  $1,100 per acre in Palestine for non arable land in 1944. At that same  time, one could buy rich arable land in Iowa for a mere $110 per acre.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#cite_note-jvl-7 It didn't take all the land illegally. As more Jews came in(starting in 1927...), then Arabs started to riot, and  British made a lot of promises to both sides. But the land was definitely not illegally seized. Much of the contention  today is with   with today's '67 borders(West Bank and Gaza)--which was much later. Side note: While it's true that it was European Jews that set up Israel and were the first immigrants, Yemenite Jews(yes, Yemenite Jews!) had a strong presence in setting up Tel Aviv, and had been in Jerusalem for a long time as well.

(I'm a Jewish Israeli). The answer by Anonymous from Mar 25 is amazing - very rare to read such an accurate and unbiased analysis. However, it doesn't answer the original question, which is: why does the Israeli government act the way it does. The answer to that: 1. Governments tend to act in a way that keeps them in power. 2. In democracies that means re-election. 3. In Israel that means satisfying Jewish Zionist vote, since most of the Arabs under Israeli control don't have voting rights, and many of those that can vote choose not to vote, as they feel (correctly) that the political system is inherently biased against them. 4. Things that win elections: a) Getting voters to fear external threats while creating an image of someone who stands strong against these threats. b) Giving privileges to your voters. c) Making your voters feel such privileges are rightfully theirs. d) Making voters feel that a change in power would result in loss of privileges. 5. Things that lose elections: a) Giving privileges to non-voters (even if not at the expense of voters - your competitors will make it seem as if it is). b) Telling voters that the privileges they have are stolen or not rightfully theirs. 6. The result: Israeli politicians and voters are under very strong pressure to believe a totally made-up version of history, in which they are under constant threat from external powers, and the privileges that were taken from the locals by force are completely justified. 7. The above results in Israelis living in a make-believe world. Those who know Middle Eastern history well will be amazed when talking to average Israelis (and some examples can be seen in other answers to this question). To illustrate, here are some commonly held beliefs in Israel: a) Zionism never threatened the local population, and it only protected itself from antisemitic terror. b) Zionist militias were not terrorists and only attacked military targets (the dozens of deadly terror attack on Arab civilians do not exist in Israeli public debate at all).  c) Colonialist decisions (e.g. Balfour Declaration) are a valid source for legitimacy for Israel. d) The 1947 war was a defensive war that actually started in 1948 when Arab armies decided to attack Israel out of the blue. e) The UN partition plan that gave most of the land to a minority of recent immigrants was a fair offer, and the Arabs deserve to lose rights for not accepting it. f) Palestinians is a made up term - the land was mostly empty and they are recent immigrants. g) 1967 was a defensive war that saved Israel from annihilation - the fact that it ended with occupation of the West Bank exactly to the Palestine-Jordan border is a mere coincidence. h) Refugees should not be allowed to return to their homes. It's their problem that they escaped from the horrors of war. They hoped that the Arabs win the war and were wrong - so we're even. i) 1947 Refugees escaped to help the Arab armies win, not to save their lives, or because they were forced to do so at gunpoint. j) In 1973 Egypt and Syria tried to annihilate Israel, rather than just take back their land from 1967. k) Every time Israel gives "concessions" in negotiations they get terror attacks in return. There is hardly any discussion of the gradual deterioration to violence due to disproportionate use of force by IDF every time there is unrest in the Occupied Territories. It may sound amazing, but probably 90% of Zionist Israelis truly believe the above statements and were never seriously confronted with contradicting information (those of them reading this text are probably staring at the screen right now furious that such lies are being said). To clarify - there is no massive conspiracy here. The politicians are mostly not aware that they're playing this game. They too grew inside this system, and have very strong incentives to maintain a biased view of reality. The few that "see the light" are quickly ejected from the system (e.g. Avraham Burg). So to answer the question: The Israeli government is not "acting like" this is the case - it is built of people that truly believe in a distorted version of history. This is a result of a biased political system in which promoting contradictory information would cause a loss of power, in turn creating a bubble where people believe these things simply because everyone around them also believe it. It is very hard to burst this bubble, as it would result in a dramatic change of the current power structure. Israelis could not be made to suddenly see reality as it is, and it is very important to realize this. Attempts to arbitrate between Israel and Palestinians are futile - power corrupts, and the strong party will never give up power willingly. The only way positive change could occur is due to international pressure that will convince Israelis that the current situation is more costly than the alternatives. This will not happen as long as the US protects Israel from such pressure. This in turn requires a change of US public opinion (which seems to be happening) and dismantling of the many US interest groups that are gaining from the current situation (much harder to achieve).

The assumptions in the question are mistaken. The essence of the conflict is the Arab and Muslim unwillingness to accept non-Muslim or Arab sovereignty in the region. Everything else is derivative. After all, the biggest perpetrators of colonialism and imperialism are the Muslims and Arabs themselves. Any perfunctory understanding of history shows this. The victims were either killed and/or subdued. Jewish victory is an affront to Arab and Muslim pride/honor. Pride/honor has an extremely high premium in Middle Eastern culture, even if the perception of it's presence, or lack thereof, is misevaluated. If they cared about the truth they would know that 1. There were Jews native to the area 2. There were many Arabs who migrated into the area during and after Jews arrived 3. Many Jews purchased land from absentee landlords 4. The Arabs initiated a war of annihilation against the Jewish community 5. The Arabs rejected the UN partition plan 6. That even if 1-5 was false (which it isn't), the corollary to their proposals would be to reverse every single Muslim expansion and refugee crisis as well. Do you ever hear anyone dwelling on the Turkish occupation in Cyprus? There is a statute of limitations on such claims. Funnily enough, if there was no statute of limitations on such claims than the land would still belong to the Jews because the Arabs originally conquered it from them.

In 1947, the UN proposed a deal that created an Arab state and a Jewish one.  There were two peoples on the land wanting a state, so the UN tried to create a state for each.  The Arab state was to get most of the good farmland and all of the holy sites for Muslims, Christians, and Jews.  The Jews accepted the deal.  The Palestinians did not.  Their position was that all the land belonged to them and the Jews should get nothing. The Palestinians chose war instead of peaceful division of the land. The leader of the largest Palestinian group in that war, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, had worked for Hitler.  He declared an intention to kill any Jews who were left after his side won the war.  He was not the only Arab leader to advocate genocide. After winning the war, the Jews decided they could not share a country with people who had just tried to massacre them. *That* is how this got directed at Arabs.  If they wanted a state, they should have taken one when it was offered peacefully in a deal that heavily favored them. Not that I oppose giving them a state now, but we'd all have been better off if they had just taken a state that gave them an amazing deal peacefully, rather than trying to murder the Jews.

Currently, the ideological cornerstone of Israel is that Jews have suffered. So nothing else matters and reality can be bent to suit the narrative (as one can see from the answers dangling out land purchases, etc.). Apartheid South Africa kept offering the same combo of pseudo-facts/logic until the international boycott movement took care of it. it was a much stronger country than present-day Israel, rich in resources and with a sizable industry. Its existence wasn't dependent on American blessings. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW_De_Klerk deserves credit for recognizing that co-existence was the only way to secure the future for the White population. BTW, the Whites had such an old presence there that they were practically Africans as well.

Perhaps we should view Israel as Europe's last colony for their unwanted. The right thing (less mass movement, less suffering imposed on people who had nothing to do with the Jewish Holocaust, closer to where stolen assets had ended up after WWII) would have been to carve out Israel from what is currently called Switzerland, perhaps with "eminent domain" and wartime conquests used to annex bits of Italy, France, Austria and large chunks of Germany. But then we would have had to deal with the massacres of Swiss refugees in camps in Augsburg and Pavia, the SLO and Swiss terrorism. On the other hand, we would have had other beneficial outcomes for humanity, Älplermagronen being served in Israeli restaurants instead of hummus and young women in the US slathering "Lac Leman mud" on their faces as exfoliating scrub.