How and where the violence started in a conflict raging about 2000 years is silly and pointless.
Ummm, the conflict really got off after al-nakba, the Jews were kicked out by the Romans a bit less than 2000 years ago but anyway. The Palestinians and Israelis fo today are so far removed from that conflict that it is fallacy to connect the current conflict to the Jewish uprisings.

nakba-shmakba, arabs attacked jews. arabs got whipped really bad. Israelis of course, exploit their victory to the max and act with utmost brutality. Their's a reason for it though, they have nowhere to go, it's israel or death. Now arabs lament over nakba. Instead of doing that, they should have allowed the palestinian refugees to integrate, but no, nobody except Jordan did that. So we still have people lingering in refugee camps 60 years after the war. Nakba. 67, same deal. It's like 1948 never happened and nobody learned anything from that failure. Once again, arabs get whipped real bad. Generated more refugees, lost more land. Nakba.

Nakba came to be largely because of the utter refusal on the arab side to negotiate a fair partition of palestine pre-48. Yes, Israel's policies are in many ways despicable, and it is most definitely not a democratic state, but in this conflict nobody is innocent.
Nice to know historical fiction and complete lack of facts is still in good health when it comes to Israel and the Arabs. The land was Palestinains before al-nakba, it was Israeli afterwards, through the process of conquest, invasion and colonialism. I don't really know why the blame falls on other people of Arab stock to intergrate these refugees, it is not as if Arabs are a unified people, nationalism was rife in the period. Pan-Arabism never really got off the ground in Palistine or Syria and Nasser was just plain anti Palestinian. So, these nations in general, dislike the Palestinians because they are not the same nations, and they resent the fact that they are left with them. It was Israel that destroyed their lives.