You already kinda made this analogy, but I'll expound on it in what I hope is a useful direction.

I think we've mostly, collectively known for a long time that the "have nots", or the people who are "less privileged" or "oppressed" or "down on their luck" - i.e. what we might call the "victims" of society - tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than those who fall on the opposite side of the coin of well-being.

And we know, further, that the causal relationship here is that the "bad luck" usually precedes the crime - not the other way around. There are vicious cycles at play here, but we can ignore that for now.

And we can have sympathy and empathy for that, and we can understand why people might be driven to crime due to their circumstances.

And if we're really empathetic, we might even say that their situation "excuses" them from judging them as "bad" people.

But even if we excuse them from this judgment, I think we can still recognize that anyone who might be a victim of a crime should still have a right to defend themselves - lest they become victims themselves.

There is no ultimate basis for defining what's "moral" or "ethical" or "good" in this world, other than what people desire for themselves.

And the simple fact of the matter is that nobody wants to live in a world where they live in danger of people commiting violence against them - even if the people commiting the violence have an understandable reason for committing the violence.

I think we can look at Israel and Hamas and understand the motivations of both sides.

But the question we still have to ask is, what precedents can we set that could coincide with a world any of us actually want to live in?