This conflict has nothing to do with "the Jews," and framing it in that way seriously distorts it.

It's a conflict between the native population of Palestine and people who came in from the outside with the goal of making Palestine their own. The outsiders won for a number of reasons (British backing, superior political organization, etc.). They now rule over the native population, most of whom they deny any rights to. They justify this by saying the native population deserves it because it hates them and resists them.

It is about the Jews, because the Arab population started violent conflicts against Jews who were legally purchasing land up through Israel's founding. Palestinians lost territory because of the violence they repeatedly started, despite legitimate military losses over territory and new borders drawn by armistices.

Please read some history:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47159524

The Israelis could be Shinto or Sikh, and it would make no difference at all to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians just care that foreigners came in and took over their land.

By casting this as the Palestinians hating "the Jews," you're trying to frame the conflict as just another example of antisemitism. The Palestinians get cast in the role of the Nazis, and the Israelis get to pretend they're the victims of antisemitism.

The actual situation is completely flipped. The Israelis exercise military rule over the Palestinians and subject them to an apartheid system, not the other way around.

It’s not though. Before the British gifted land to the Israelis they owned 7% of the land through land purchases and just ended up with 51% of the land after pressuring the British to leave with a series hotel and car bombs. So, yeah the Palestinians were victims and then about 750,000 of those people were forced from their homes into crowded ghettos Nazi style. All of that occurred irrespective of any armed conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians.