[khokhol]

I don't know what you're trying to argue here.

That you are attempting to wiggle away from the plainly obvious nature of the quote, for some reason.

Nobody denies that an enormous number of civilians have been killed in the IDF's Gaza operation.

Except of course numerous Israeli government officials. (They don't deny that many civilians have been killed -- but they have continually attempted to dial down the proportion of civilian casualties, along with all the rhetoric about there being "no innocents" or "no uninvolved civilians" in Gaza to begin with).

[tptacek]

In what way? You get that the Gaza offensive can be a long series of war crimes and unjustifiable civilian casualties and the quote can not mean what the parent comment said it meant, right? If you think the quote is an unimportant side detail, I think we can agree on that generally.

This is a thread about rhetoric, not a judgement of the whole conflict.

[khokhol]

In what way?

In that it's plainly clear that the Amalek quote does mean what the parent commenter (and anyone else who understands the region) can easily see that it does. But you keep coming up with weird evasive arguments to claim that it doesn't. Like the above, for example.

If you think the quote is an unimportant side detail

Unfortunately and very tragically -- it is anything but.

[tptacek]

You're not engaging with what I've said. You're looking at what's happening in Gaza and deriving axiomatically a new meaning for the quote. That's understandable, but it's not valid.

Or, at least, that's what I think. We're running towards the right margin of the site with this thread now, and we're not going to convince each other of anything, so we can also let it go.

[khokhol]

To engage with what you said: I don't think you grasp the extent to which "extremist" thinking on the question of what to do with the Palestinians (backed by violent action) has now become quite normalized in Israel.

For example, it is odd that you attempted to claim, way up top, that it's just the "Kahanist extremists" who take the broader view of the Amalek reference, as this signifies some distance with what Netanyahu thinks. When what defines the current Netanyahu era is its willful alliance with Kahanist parties -- crowned by the appointment of two of its premier representatives to Minister positions.

Along with all the obscene horror of what's been happening on the ground.

[tptacek]

I think we've established that I'm talking about what Netanyahu actually said, and that you're talking about a meaning and a context that you impute to what he said. Maybe you're right about that. Roll the thread back to where this started, and I think you'll see why I'm saying what I'm saying.

[khokhol]

I draw the meaning and context from both the state of current discussion in Israel, and its evolution (especially in regard to what to do with the Palestinian population) since even before 1948.

Look more into what public figures there have been saying, not just in the past 4 months, but for several years now -- not just on the margins, but in the mainstream -- and you'll see why I'm saying what I'm saying.