H? and VALAR: who is mightier and who is right?

So you see the Valar alliance as the victim in this matter?  They lost a player then lost a city.  They were disrespected by not being contacted first.  Valid.  Very valid.  

But what of their action against an active member of another alliance?  surely this is also frowned upon.  So Harmless feels their player was wrongfully attacked.  Valid.  Very valid.

What has come of this?  Harmless seems to have openly admitted their wrong doing but stand firm that the city was over-due for removal.  I remember reading a public apology regarding that.  They are now seeking recompense for the attack which was made and which they have been publicly smeared and ridiculed for demanding.  It seems to be a matter of principle for them that another alliance would openly attack an active players siege to defend an inactive players city.

I am still confused and not sure I am fully understanding.  

No, and that's the problem.  H? did not make any attempt to contact Valar to discuss the situation.  Valar launched an army before they contacted H? (or simultaneously with the contact).  Both sides acted hastily without sufficient regard for resolving the situation by diplomatic means.  Both sides share the fault.