If I was editing wikipedia and saw your statement I’d add these two tags:
[dubious claim: discuss][citation needed]
I know you’re taking a quote from the debate but it seems really out of context. If I remember he was talking about Israel’s response to a potential Iranian attack.
That quote is really a political Rorschach test. You see what you want in it. Some see it as simply Walz misspeaking, one of several such flubs during the debate. Others see it as him accidentally saying the quiet part out loud. You see what you want in it.
If I was editing wikipedia and saw your statement I’d add these two tags:
[dubious claim: discuss] [citation needed]
I know you’re taking a quote from the debate but it seems really out of context. If I remember he was talking about Israel’s response to a potential Iranian attack.
Not the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
That quote is really a political Rorschach test. You see what you want in it. Some see it as simply Walz misspeaking, one of several such flubs during the debate. Others see it as him accidentally saying the quiet part out loud. You see what you want in it.
I don’t see many interpretations of “an absolute, fundamental necessity”
It’s not really out of context, that’s what they said they even added a “but” before it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcWUZM9ZFyA