I am not saying that I disagree with this or that I didn't already know this,however he was still a lackey for the occupation & I posted this as food for thought.
And he answered you with some thoughts.
I don't see how he was a lackey of the occupation: could you elaborate on that point of view?
My understanding was that he was the last vestige of Jewish
self rule within the newly occupying force and chazal identiified his murder as ending the last hope of a significant number of Jews remaining in Judea or maintaining any kind of strong Jewish presence in the land during that exile period.
The more disconnected we were, the more difficult it would be to reestablish the Jewish nationhood and we see how rooted some of the exiled became in Bavel. The weakness of the returnee movement under Ezra directly contributed to the problems experienced during the Second Temple period.
I think this discussion raises a key point which is sometimes missed by the right wing, including charedim and some kahanists and rightwing national religious. Namely, we see how strongly chazal felt about Jewish self rule in the. Land of Israel and its critiical importance to Judaism. They prioritized this very highly. It is a value in and of itself, independent of who precisely is in charge of that self rule or how righteous they are or are not.
On a separate note, I think in exceptional cases where an individual might disagree with chazal's reasoning, he still has good reason to observe their instituted law on that issue anyway. Because we accepted chazal's overarching legal authority to make these laws. Granted this is not a positive philosophy one should view all mitzvah observance with, but it does give reason in individual cases to bow one's neck and step in line.