Fair enough; that's a bad parallel. Allegory always falls apart at some point. (The tunnels fall, instead, under the "and totally destroy all that belongs to them" part of the message.)

Given the allegorical nature of interpreting religious texts--we don't seriously entertain the idea that Netanyahu is going to spend any excess effort to specifically target livestock or other animals owned by Gazans or Hamas, for instance--the scoping issue is central.

It's clearly a call to commit atrocities without remorse, because the story is about committing atrocities and a small amount of compassion being too much.

What's not clear is that Gazans were the target of the parallel, but you suggested they were by saying "When Benjamin Netanyahu compares Gaza to Amalek".

But he was talking about Hamas, not Gaza. And given how allegory works, no, I don't think it's at all clear that he meant that the target had to be a nation, any more than that he meant that there were enough ox, sheep, camels, and donkeys to be worth thinking about their destruction.

We all know he means to destroy without regard for the atrocities being committed--including killing children--in return for being viciously attacked. What we don't "all" know is the intended bounds of the destruction.

What we do know is plenty to reject the sentiment utterly. But you drew the lines wider than I think can be supported. If you even have to use the term "dog whistle", the entire point is that not everyone gets it, because otherwise it's just a whistle that everyone can hear.