If people aid or support the violation of international law, they're complicit in that violation and should be considered responsible for their actions and choices in that regard. Until a few months ago, that wasn't exactly a controversial viewpoint.
For comparison...
When concerns arose about UNRWA, countries halted their funding of it. That lack of funding was considered necessary by governments, despite the knowledge that it would have severe consequences for innocent people in Palestine, some of whom died because they could not receive the assistance which UNRWA would otherwise have been undertaking to provide. This was justified and defended by governments on the basis that the potential harm of funding an organisation about which there were allegations of involvement in terrorist atrocities outweighed the potential harm to people from not funding it. Investigations were carried out, issues identified and even now, funding has not yet been fully restored.
Meanwhile, countries continue to supply Israel with arms and supplies for use in military operations in Palestine. The explicit, stated purpose of these supplies is to kill people. There are credible concerns that these supplies may not be being used in accordance with international law. Yet those supplies continue to be provided, for direct use in the very area in which those concerns have been raised.
That is the outcome of the calculations weighing up the value of Palestinian lives.
Calculations about the values of lives happen every day and hard decisions get made on the basis of them. Attempting rescues, calling off searches, the cost:benefit analysis of miliary operations, how much compensation is due to bereaved relatives, etc. In theory, there should be a starting point of all lives being of equal intrinsic value. In practice, that doesn't happen. We see it in those calculations every day. What we see in these calculations is that some lives are worth sufficiently less in the eyes of the people doing the calculations, that even additional factors such as potential violations of international law do not change outcomes away from active contributions to the very acts causing harm to those people. Whether someone finds it more palatable to include that reduced value explicitly at the start of the calculation, or to factor it in at the end with a 'but', the outcome is the same:
The lives of Palestinians are not considered, by some, to have sufficient value to be grounds to pause or halt the supplies of arms used in military action against them, when there are credible concerns that those arms are being used in ways which violate international law.