This is a common defense of Israel's atrocities. It's the "we were here first" rule.
Which is itself a subheading of "They were the original aggressors."
Side B points to some event in modern history whereby side A clearly was aggressive.
Side A: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side A: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side A: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side A: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but that was in response to your prior attemtp to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
.
.
.
Side A: Yes, but we were just defending our existential threat from your genocidal crusade 1,250 years ago to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but we were just defending our existential threat from your genocidal crusade 1,275 years ago to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side A: Yes, but we were just defending our existential threat from your genocidal crusade 1,300 years ago to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but we were just defending our existential threat from your genocidal crusade 1,325 years ago to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side A: Yes, but we were just defending our existential threat from your genocidal crusade 1,350 years ago to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
Side B: Yes, but we were just defending our existential threat from your genocidal crusade 1,375 years ago to destroy our people and to destroy our religion.
.
.
.
Side A: Yes, but we were just struggling to escape from the bondage in which you had enslaved our ancestors 2,500 years ago.
Side B: Yes, but we were just struggling to escape from the bondage in which you had enslaved our ancestors 2,600 years ago.
Side A: Yes, but we were just struggling to escape from the bondage in which you had enslaved our ancestors 2,700 years ago.
Side B: Yes, but we were just struggling to escape from the bondage in which you had enslaved our ancestors 2,800 years ago.
.
.
.
Side A: Yes, but that was in response to your pillaging of our caves 5,400 years ago. We were left with nothing to eat.
Side B: That's not true ... that wasn't us.
Side A: Yes it was. Many innocent women and children died from your aggression.
Side B: Liars!
Side A: Murderers! Thieves!
There is no solution to be had by discussing any history. There is no root cause to be realized. There is no common ground to be reached.
I wonder how these American supporters of this logic would react of American Indians started stealing land from other Americans and then tried to justify it with the same logic.
The US previously had settled on a solution to that very issue: The US Army.
Today I think the solution has migrated to "Federal Agents."