Being against ethnic cleansing and land theft isn't "nationalist propaganda". Let's stick to historical facts, starting with Nakba and the Balfour Declaration, both of which were egregious human rights violations.
What's the logic for starting with the Nakba versus something earlier or later?
Part of what I think makes this conflict intractable is everyone has a litany of historical grievances they can readily pull up to justify just about any claim.
Not everyone. Plenty of nations across history forgave, or at least tolerated and moved on. (America, Germany and Japan. Hell, America and Britain. India and Britain. Pretty much every member of the EU.)
The ones that don't, the ones that hold onto multigenerational gripes, tend to be consumed by them. (I'm not arguing that the Israelis or Palestinians or Armenians should give up because it's more peaceful. These are complicated fractures. But I'll stand by this feature, alone, making their conflicts intractable. Particularly by outsiders. The best you can do is permanent stalemate.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_trading_partne...