I think the best you can say he didn’t do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite (‘Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law’), but maybe he didn’t actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified “within international law” after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It’s pretty presumptuous.
Yeah I’m not vouching for his whole worldview on this, just pointing out that he didn’t say the sieging and resource denial is okay.
I think he kinda did tbh.
I think the best you can say he didn’t do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite (‘Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law’), but maybe he didn’t actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified “within international law” after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It’s pretty presumptuous.
It’s the sort of thing he could clarify in an apology I think.
He should apologize for not condoning the siege? I don’t think that would be a politically savvy choice.
… unintentionally endorsing collective punishment.
Which part was the endorsement?