I've seen many people take absolutists stances and throw accusations or insults at others who don't. While I applaud that they recognized serious problems, I want everyone to understand why I might take actions that seem to ignore or even worsen those problems: I only have so much power and so many options, none of which are ideal, so I do the best I can with what I have. I might prioritize stopping one bad thing over stopping another; that's not me excusing the other bad thing, that's me playing the cards I have to get the least bad outcome.
Personally, I base my moral decisions on expected outcomes. I would pull the lever in the trolley problem. I understand some people think me a monster for that, and I certainly wouldn't feel good pulling it, but I see it as me net saving people. I disagree with people that wouldn't pull it, but I see where they're coming from and I'm not mad at them (disappointed, maybe). Of course, as well as pulling the lever, there may be options to try helping the one person on the tracks, and we should definitely attempt such a rescue.
This whole topic can be applied to the do-i-vote-for-biden thing that this community seems divided over, but it's much more broadly applicable too.
Anyway, this is just me saying that I don't think the absolutist all-or-nothing approach some people take is a good idea, and I also don't like when some of them call me a bad person for not doing the same.
There are 3 options for president this next election cycle (Trump, Biden, abstain/throwaway), and they're all bad for Palestine. The way I see it is that if they're both equally bad for Palestine, my choice here makes no difference towards that and so I should use this choice to affect areas where the choice actually matters. That's why I make a comparison to the trolley problem; Palestine's on both tracks sadly, but I can still control the lever to decide how many others on the tracks will be hit.