when I argue with people who support Israel's bombing campaigns I have to drill down to the most basic things, like "do you think these people's lives have less value than Israeli lives?" "How can you argue one person's life has less value than another?"
they'll say stuff like "they all want to kill us, they're taught to hate us in school, they all support hamas, they're raised to hate" etc. I say: "do you think someone deserves to be killed because of their views? .... or even because they've joined an organisation? ... does that justify killing?" etc.
you have to try to appeal to basic principles like that. but then you realise some people on the other side think the same way, i.e. Israeli lives have less value, they deserve to die now because they're supporting genocide. it's OK to kill someone for their views, etc.
there's no principles it eventually just becomes tribal on both sides.
except weirdly one side isnt even part of the tribe lol they're just white british people watching from another country but anyway
someone's gonna say "yeah but the situation is completely unequal so don't draw equivalence" - missing the point tho. when there's no principles it makes arguments against Israel ineffective (killing civilians is no longer a red line), fails to get neutral people to care, and fuels a sense of justification on the Israeli side ("if the tables were turned you'd be doing this to us, so why shouldn't we do it to you")
you gotta have some principles e.g. murder is bad