For any supposed case where good intelligent people should supposedly side with massive violence, one has to consider five questions.
1) Is it worth the support being given in the longterm to the war machine? Supporting the war machine when there are alternatives to doing so means gratuitously supporting the single biggest impediment to global cooperation, the single biggest waste of badly needed resources, the single biggest destroyer of the natural environment, the cause of the nuclear threat, the justification for government secrecy and surveillance, and so on.
2) Does the evidence not show that a nonviolent approach would be more likely to succeed? I think that, even in the most extreme cases, it clearly does.
3) Is it worth the wide variety of damage and destruction and killing — and what it would do to you to have supported such evil for an unlikely victory that is likely to be shortlived?
4) Are you sure that pride, machismo, anger, resentment, and/or frustration are not making you imagine something is a good idea that is actually a really bad idea?
5) Are you sure you’re not giving the other side exactly what it wants, giving Israel exactly what it wants by shooting missiles at it? Giving Trump exactly what he wants by attacking his troops in a U.S. city? Giving NATO exactly what it wants by invading Ukraine? Are you sure you’re not being played for a sucker by the weapons dealers arming both your side and the other side?
Answer those five questions and then tell me I should support violence.