I don't think it's that simple. Their dismantling and regional replacement with something indigenous / pro-indigenous is important, that is for sure. But separatism without replacement isn't necessarily good for anyone, especially if it's backed by even more radically settler settlers.

Like to put it in example of historical context, imagine if we looked at the US's Civil War era and said the secession of the Confederate States was objectively good because it breaks up the US and that it would have been better that way. Those were states that broke off because they wanted to keep their slaves. We could try to argue that the world would have been better off if the outcome of the Civil War was a splintered US instead of a reunified one, but it's too many unknowns. What if the Confederate States had existed alongside for a time, then grown stronger, and eventually annexed/absorbed the others? Creating an even more hardline rightist US?

I'm not saying going back and trying to answer those questions is what matters. Just trying to make the point that the kind of breakup is important.