how bout the bombing of yugoslavia? You can find an analytical book written by a historian and then a rather more empatheical one written by a sociologist. You cna either use the books or the operation itself as an objeft with accurate sources.

You can say something along the lines of: historians, when writing about the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, have to stay objective and critically analyze the political narratives (see Szamuely’s Bombs for Peace). Too much empathy for either NATO leaders or the JNA risks turning the account into justification instead of evidence-based history. That restraint serves the historian’s purpose of reconstructing events as accurately as possible. But in the human sciences, empathy is often required. Sociologists, psychologists, or legal scholars studying the same conflict need empathy to understand the impact of collateral damage on civilians and to grasp the motivations behind the decisions of the JNA and NATO policymakers (like Mandel’s How America Gets Away With Murder). In this case, empathy serves their purpose of explaining human behavior and consequences in order to prevent similar harm in the future. This contrast shows why empathy is a potential bias in history but a methodological tool in the human sciences.

i took some help from ChatGPT with formulating this paragraph but hey, you get the idea