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.

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.

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.

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.

I see why you're saying what you're saying.