I believe there are comparisons that apply and others that do not. I'm not trying to win an argument, it may be that the only way some think Israel can survive is to oppress the Palestinians on their borders. It works if countries like the US automatically support them witharms and cash and overlook that Gaza has become a concentration camp and the West Bank is continually losing ground to illegal settlements.

In your description, rich slaveholders didn't think there was a problem doing as they pleased to slaves but it wouldn't work unless the entire population bought in, if almost every white person thought themselves superior to Black people and had the laws and courts to back them up.

Nat Turner had no hope things would get better on their own and chose a path with little realistic hope that change would come in his lifetime that had little chance of being lengthy, yet he did make a difference long term.

The most apt comparison will be the backlask. Bibi has already promised to kill every member of Hamas, the question is how many innocent Palestinians is he willing to accept dying along the way? Maybe he's like Ron DeSantis who offers no sanctuary for Palestinian-Americans because "they're all anti-Semetic."

I considered other comparisons where intruders were on American soil but thought the Nat Turner Rebellion was closest. I didn't think it was clever, I pray that what Israel will unleash on the Palestinians isn't what I imagine. We will see.