at 3000 bce, the area we now call israel was recovering from something called the bronze age collapse. there was a group of recent migrants to the region called philistines, who we know today were greek settlers related to the infamous sea-peoples, living roughly in the area we now call gaza. many hundreds of years later, the romans would rename the area after these greek settlers as a punishment for a jewish revolt against the romans. the indigenous canaanites, who spoke hebrew and not arabic, mostly lived in modern day lebanon. there was a population in the southern part of the levant that corresponded to what was later called judaea that appears to have been related to old mesopotamian settlers from the fertile crescent. the 'ur' in jerusalem is a place name connected to very old pre-semitic sumerian language groups, which were probably ethnically caucasian (related to modern day georgians and armenians) and not semitic at all. the assyrians had not yet moved south to conquer the area, and the movement of a heavily colonized iranic-semitic group into the region under cyrus had not yet occurred. what we call israel today was really created under the direction of the persians, who had a broadly phil-phoenecian policy, due to the phoenecians' naval supremacy, and the fact that the persians were a horse-mounted warrior group from the european steppes around ukraine, that were not good at ship building. the persians needed the phoenecian/canaanite/hebrew groups to import items like tin, which was used to make swords, via naval routes.
there were a people that the western sources called arabs living in the desert outside of the southern levant, but they appear to have spoken hebrew, and not arabic. they were not the same people that invaded the region in the 7th century, from yemen, and brought south semitic arabic languages into it. in fact, the hebrew-speaking arabs just outside of israel, in cities like petra, appeared to worship greek deities like zeus, and seem to have been heavily influenced by the philistines.
the conflict in the region at the time was a lingering ethnic conflict between the greek-speaking sea peoples and the indigenous egyptians and hebrews, as well as conflict between the trade-focused and vaguely democratic hebrew-speaking phoenician groups on the coast of the mediterrranean, who were very greek in behaviour, and the brutally authoritarian and viciously militaristic societies that developed out of the collapsing agricultural base in the fertile crescent, most importantly the assyrians. the assyrians sought to force tribute on the hebrew-speaking groups, who had a tentative level of autonomy from a longstanding egyptian hegemony, which asserted itself after the egyptians had driven the hittites (an indo-european group living in modern day turkey) out of the region, before the onset of the bronze age collapse. we can prove that the assyrians did eventually succeed in moving south and destroying the societies in the hebrew speaking areas and taking a large amount of slaves back to babylon, an area which included lebanon, syria, "palestine", jordan and israel, but they were mostly interested in the phoenician trading ports in lebanon, and there is no historical support for any of the stories around saul, david or solomon in the old testament, and they probably never existed at all, but were invented as a myth during what the hebrews call their captivity.
as such, the idea that the current conflict in israel is 3000 years old has no basis in fact or history. there were hebrews/phoenecians/canaanites, egyptians and assyrians in the region at the time, and the persians were coming in soon, but there were no arabs, by the modern association of the term with a group of south semitic speakers from yemen, in the area at the time. when these groups from yemen did eventually move into the area, the western sources distinguish them from the hebrew speaking arabs and call them saracens, instead. it took a long time for these ethnic and cultural identities to fuse in the western sources, until well after the crusades had begun. more academic (as it was defined at the time) western sources like the papacy use specific language to differentiate between the existing hebrew-speaking arabic groups and the invading muslim saracens from yemen. the assyrians sought economic control of the region, and to destroy it for refusing tribute, in acts of simple barbarism, while the egyptians maintained loose hegemonic control, and saw it as a buffer between themselves and the warlike groups in mesopotamia.
after the persians came the greeks and romans, and then the arabs in the 7th century, who were themselves overrun by turks and mongols in the 12th and 13th centuries. there was migration of south semitic speakers from yemen into the region during the islamic conquest, but the region was heavily depopulated not by the expulsions of the jews but by the brutally destructive heraclean wars between rome and persia and by devastating epidemics of the bubonic plague, coming out of the heraclean wars. it was the plague that wiped the then roman society out in the region. the archaeologists have found a destruction horizon after heracleus, and connected it to an increase in pastoralism and herd grazing. before the arabs moved into jerusalem, it had actually been abandoned by roman civilization and overrun by sheep and goat herders, as had happened earlier in britain, in germany and in the trans-danubian basin.
if you want to be very generous, you could tie the current conflict to the monophysite heresy in egypt during late antiquity, but that is a dramatic stretch.
a better number to use would have been 1000 years rather than 3000 years, as you can make a coherent case that the basis of the british palestinian mandate began during the crusades. you couldn't cogently extend that back further. but i don't think trump was expecting a rigorous analysis of the number he pulled out of his ass.