No, this was a misquote, but it sounds juicy so it will never stop being passed around on the Internet. Netanyahu cited a completely different verse of the Torah, which was then mischaracterized.
The verse Netanyahu quoted said to blot out even the memory of the Amaleks, after comparing Gazans to Amaleks. How is this a misquoted? This is the verse he cited, although the other verse you mentioned is just as bloodthirsty.
Especially the correction (italics are my own and added to contrast your view with that of those who disagree with your interpretation):
> [POST-BROADCAST CORRECTION: This interview incorrectly says a quote from a speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave on Oct. 28 refers to the Amalekites from the biblical Book of Samuel. The prime minister’s office added a citation to his written and translated remarks to indicate Netanyahu was quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy. Both stories call for the Israelites to completely eliminate their attackers. In the Book of Deuteronomy, the text reads “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
It's a weird nitpick about 'blotting out the memory' of another society being much nicer and not at all genocidal compared to the 'spare no one' of 1 Samuel, and Rosenberg spends a lot of words to avoid describing how Netanyahu's speech was perceived by his constituents.
I'm really not so much interested in litigating the broader conflict; just, this is a factoid that gets brought into these threads, and it's worth knowing the quote people are referring to was mischaracterized.
“There are many other quotes either similar meaning and intent, but you got the intent of this one quote wrong” is not… something I’d feel the need to point out to people.
The claim being made is the Netanyahu himself expressed coded genocidal intent, by citing a passage from the Book of Samuel in which God commands King Saul to kill every member of Amalek. But he's quoting an entirely different passage, unrelated to the Book of Samuel, about a surprise attack.
It's not a technical distinction. People should stop bringing up the Amalek thing. Virtually everyone who cites it has no idea what it's a reference to. Given the gravity of everything that has happened since 2023, it's a pointless diversion. Any argument you want to make, you can make without this.
if we are interested in truth and justice, there is a mountain of evidence of genocide at ICC/ICJ awaiting the trial, so we should let the judicial process run its way, just like with Nuremberg trials
