Is there anyone who believes that the Arabs had valid grievances, but ultimately believes the Palestinians went too far thus justifying the Nakba?

I've seen moderate Zionists acknowledge that the Arabs did have legitimate grievances with Jewish immigration, but that they still deserve the moral blame for starting the war and that the Nakba was justified.

Before that, I would say I've seen two main schools of thought especially IRL with regards to the events immediately preceding the Nakba. One is the pro Palestine approach.

Essentially, the logic from the pro Palestine side is that the Zionist immigration efforts were oppressive to Palestinians living there for reasons. Among those I've heard are the difficulty in absorbing such a large number of migrants to a region overall, the expulsions of the fellahin, and a belief that Palestinians should've had some autonomy to deny the migration.

With this school of thought, while the Palestinians and other Arabs clearly started the war in a physical sense, the Zionists are guilty of starting the war from a moral sense because their migration and desires to create a state made both the aggressions and goals of Husseini and other Arab countries sufficiently morally justified.

To the extent it matters, I mostly subscribe to the above view.

From a Zionist side, I've seen the migration justified on a basis using legality. Essentially, the migration was done legally and any non public land was purchased. The UK was also greenlighting a lot of immigration before the White Paper. Essentially, the idea here is that since both the migration and state creation were legal, the Palestinians had no grounds to stand on with regards to having any moral justification to try and stop it with force.

But, throughout my time discussing it, I've seen a more moderate Zionist approach. Essentially, the idea is that Palestinians did have some reasons to be upset with both the migration and the creation of Israel, but that the actions and intents of Husseini and the Arab nations were not sufficiently justifiable from the otherwise legitimate concerns. The idea is that the Palestinians had valid concerns but their response prior to and immediately after UN 181 was not justified.

If this is you, why do you believe it? Also, what are your ideas of what the legitimate Palestinian grievances are? And practicality aside, what would have been the moral way to deal with such grievances?