Lattice multiplication will probably take algebra to explain. Long division definitely will require algebra. In my school, there's a gap of 5 years between teaching the two. A lot more people in the world need arithmetic than they need algebra (easily over a factor of 10). We can't put off teaching arithmetic till they learn algebra.
A lot of people don't realize that this problem goes all the way to undergrad and grad education in engineering or science. Laplace transforms are very useful, but they require complex analysis to begin to understand. If you blindly apply the integration that is normally taught, the Fourier transforms of several simple functions have integrals that simply, clearly do not converge. Yet we're taught tricks to indirectly calculate them. How is that possible? How do we get a result from something that clearly diverges?
And don't even get me started on the Dirac Delta function.
Recently I picked up an introductory analysis book - it starts from Peano axioms and builds up natural numbers, sets, integers, rationals, and then finally reals. It requires a fair amount of mathematical maturity to explain simple concepts, like how multiplying a positive with a negative could result in a negative, or how multiplying two positive numbers can result in an even smaller number (something that I did get upset about in my school days).
While yes, it is convenient to cherry pick examples where it was taught poorly without intuition, the reality is that if you want to prepare someone to go into, say, engineering, there is a lot of math one needs to cover, and teachers just can't afford to spend time explaining things that are way out of scope.
I don't believe (nor do I think you were claiming) that this means math cannot be taught more intuitively. An even broader example to your point is that Calculus itself was invented without foundation, at least without foundation modern mathematicians would find satisfactory; intuition patched some holes around 'infinity.' But Calculus could none the less be developed by blackboxing its inner workings and justifying its existence by just how spectacularly useful and predictive it was.
Likewise with arithmetic and algebra itself: ancient civilizations who factored numbers or solved equations did not require Peano's work to justify inventing some math. Calculus and all the math before it would indeed rest on foundations absent any Set Theory. The wider perspective is that discovery starts in the middle of a concept, and works out towards its implications and inwards towards its axioms.
The justification taught to those learning math (or anything) need not start from its axioms, but it should start from its history in context to how humans found use for the concept - that is justifying enough and likely more satisfying than learning axioms developed after the fact when the question is 'why?'
Chemistry, physics, thermo, dynamics, electronics, fluid mechanics, electronics, etc., were all math classes, in addition to a solid slate of required math classes.
If one didn't care for math, Caltech was a very very wrong place to attend :-) You either got good at it, or you left. I definitely felt that 4 years of that rewired my brain.
There are shortcut formulas, and before calculators a lot of calculations were done using drafting equipment.
I think it was long division and lattice multiplication in elementary school
Doing math by drawing numbers in predefined shapes so that it magically worked out was the most ludicrous thing I'd ever seen
"Because that's how it works." Wasn't really a satisfactory answer lol.