One reason I'm at such pains to point out that this is a plausible alternative is that the dangers of being open to alternatives are usually far less than the dangers of too rapidly making up one's mind; the dangers of mindreading usually exceed the dangers of obliviousness. Usually is the operative word here; details matter.

I am perfectly happy to read Hamas' charter as indicating that they only mean to kill all the Jews in Israel, not every Jew everywhere; I can even believe that they only mean that they'll kill Jews until they are in complete uncontested control of the area. Without killing Jews, though, there's no point to quoting it at all--the core message is kill Jews. If they say, no, we are only engaging in murderous ethnic cleansing here, not global genocide, I would entertain that idea.

Likewise, the core message of Amalek is that you eliminate an attacker by killing that group, including women and children. I can believe that the group is Hamas, and that the reason it's relevant is that you're going to (1) kill Hamas members' families and not feel bad about it, and (2) kill women and children who are not Hamas because it's easier to kill Hamas without worrying about them. Without nearly indiscriminate slaughter, though, there's no point to quoting it at all.

Both of these quotes are extremely troubling. They both indicate an enthusiastic embrace of mass death, a callous disregard of human life, and a willingness to overlook acts that would be genocidal by even the most conservative definitions of genocide. The policies that follow from either should be vigorously opposed; and the power structures that support such things almost surely need to be dismantled. (Fortunately, in Bibi's case, that can be largely done via an election.)

And that's enough.

I don't need to make a call about whether Bibi is genocidal, or whether Hamas is, in order to know that the some of the means by which they seek to accomplish their goals need to be strongly opposed.

And if I make the wrong call, I might be led to take the wrong action. If one were to believe that (1) Hamas seeks the annihilation of all Jews everywhere (they say not but who can trust them?), and (2) Palestinians in Gaza are fully supportive of Hamas (they say, well, actually, they say they do), and (3) it is only a matter of time before they will gain access to the means to enact genocide (just look at Iran!), then it would be a lot more understandable to enact counter-genocide.

The point, though, is that isn't the situation. We still have options. Options that don't involve killing huge numbers of people.

If I make the right call, that too can be a problem--because if someone has left themselves an out by sounding ambiguous and you then don't let them take the out, to save face they might feel compelled to walk down the harsher path.

So, pragmatically, being less certain is wiser. Intellectually, I also think it is more justifiable. And the consequences could be sizable.

So that's why I think it's worth thinking about and talking about.