What is the pro-Palestinian justification for the second intifada?

In July 2000 the Camp David Summit between Barak, Arafat and Clinton ended without an agreement, though the two parties continued to negotiate (e.g, at Taba). Exactly how fair (or not) Israel’s proposals for peace were is hotly debated. That is not a debate I want to re-litigate here.

In September 2000, the Second Intifada broke out. Its immediate trigger appears to have been Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. The uprising was suppressed 4 years and 138 suicide bombings later.

There are two version of the cause of the Second Intifada and I don’t see how either can be justified unless you believe Israel should not exist at all and resistance to its mere existence is justified.

The first version is that the Palestinian leadership planned the Intifada to extract more concessions from Israel. There is ample evidence to support this. If that is the case, how can you justify that? Israel made many concessions during Oslo and offered more than they ever had before at Camp David. Perhaps you think they didn’t do or offer enough, but surely you concede they were at least making a genuine effort to make peace? If one side is negotiating in good faith and the other is using violence to bolster their negotiating position, how can you support the second side?

The other version is that it was a spontaneous uprising from the masses, appalled at Sharon’s visit to a place that is holy to both Jews and Arabs. I accept that the visit was unnecessary and provocative. He should not have gone. But while I can accept that it would upset and anger Palestinians, I cannot see how a person merely walking near your holy sites (he did not enter any mosques) can justify such violent rioting. If the Palestinian people do not have greater self-control they are like children.

Without telling me why Israel’s offer was insufficient, without telling me they responded to the rioting with disproportionate force, focusing just on the start of the Second Intifada itself, tell me - how can it be justified?