Quoting this because it strikes me as the heart of the issue. Simply put, when we are presented with 2 viewpoints, we are conditioned to believe that "balance", "equanimity", or "moderation" lie at the center. That in and of itself can mislead, as the 2 viewpoints can be so far removed from reality that merely considering them is enough to trap you in delusion.
Forgive the crude metaphor, but it basically amounts to this: If group 'A' wants to selfishly exploit 50 people and group 'B' wants to selfishly exploit 100 people, the most "enlightened" course of action is not to compromise by selfishly exploiting 75 people. This should be obvious to anyone, but treating others with skillful kindness and compassion is a better course of action than hurting and using them for selfish reasons. But if the gradient of exploiting 50-100 people is taken as the only matter of course, treating people kindly is not even an option.
If this comes off as argumentative, I apologize, but I think that the way this question is framed is not constructive. Basically, the "correct" path is simply correct. Whether it is extremely political or not at all, is something that happens after-the-fact. One can practice non-attachment and engage in politics (Or anything else) simply by acting purely and not engaging more than is necessary.
To end, sometimes people need to be political because their lives depend on it. Sometimes, merely existing is enough to politicize a person's life. If you were a Palestinian, you would have no choice but to engage with politics. We live in the physical world, which means that there is work to be done and delusions to let go of in the physical world. As practitioners, we should be wary of mundane delusions, which don't require amazing siddhis or spiritual practice to work through, as my personal experience tells me that even remarkable seekers and talents can fall prey to them.
