Dozens of Democrats chose to boycott Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week, among them Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris. Some 5,000 protesters assembled outside the Capitol. It was an impressive speech, but it raised several important questions.

He began: “Our world is in upheaval. In the Middle East, Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends. This is not a clash of civilizations. It’s a clash between barbarism and civilization. It’s a clash between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life.”

This was said in the context of 39,000 Palestinians killed, at least two thirds of them women and children, with thousands more buried under the rubble of ceaseless bombardment. During World War II, the Nazis shot 10 French for every German killed as a result of actions taken by the Resistance. The corresponding ratio for Palestinians killed in Gaza is approximately 25 to one (allowing for 2/3 deaths incurred as non-combatants). It boggles the mind that such slaughter can be equated with “civilization” or “sanctify[ing] life.” Whose side is barbarism on?

The prime minister referred on several occasions in his speech to bringing the hostages home. What he failed to mention is the bind that Hamas finds itself in here. In the dramatic raid a few weeks ago to rescue four of hostages, the Israelis were said by some reports to have killed over 300 Palestinians. This ratio cannot be repeated, and not simply because it is completely unjust.

The more Palestinians are killed, the less likely Hamas is to negotiate. But if the Israelis slack off, the right-wing, ultra-orthodox parties on which Netanyahu depends for his political survival are likely to bring down the government. Netanyahu thus finds himself in a bind from which it will not be easy to extract himself.

Meanwhile relatives of the hostages are strongly pressing the government to do everything in its power to bring them home. Adding to the difficulties, Israel is becoming increasingly isolated internationally because of its pursuit of the war.

Netanyahu was also brazen about the issue of food used as a weapon. Famine experts estimate that as many as 500,000 Gazans are on the brink of starvation. Yet this was waved away by the Prime Minister as having nothing to do with Israeli actions: “utter complete nonsense. … If there are Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t getting enough food, it’s not because Israel is blocking it, it’s because Hamas is stealing it.”

In reality, Netanyahu knows perfectly well that there are two main reasons why food isn’t getting through. First, the area around the border near Raffa is the site of heavy fighting, so trucks often stay in Egypt. Second, the Israelis insist on thoroughly inspecting every truck for possible Hamas weapons, which of course slows things down even more.

Israel’s war aims, according to Netanyahu, can be simply stated: “[A] new Gaza could emerge” if Hamas was defeated and Gaza “demilitarized and de-radicalized.” The difficulty is that these objectives are easier said than done. With so many deaths and so many buildings destroyed, Palestinians if anything are likely to continue to support Hamas. Actually, inflicting a complete military defeat on Hamas, if the past is any guide, would involve the deaths of scores of thousands more Palestinians, while putting off the prospect for a ceasefire indefinitely.

Netanyahu also alluded to Hamas’s link to Iran: “[W]hen Israel fights Hamas, we’re fighting Iran,” he said. But a proxy war of this nature cannot be used as a justification for so many Palestinian fatalities. Destroying Hamas, even were that possible, will leave Iran, “the axis of terror,” largely untouched.

Israel’s prime minister tried to put the best face possible on a catastrophic situation. Unfortunately, he left too many questions unanswered.

Richard Ogle is a writer, researcher, and business consultant. He has a doctorate in linguistics from UCLA, and is the author of “Smart World: Breakthrough Creativity and the New Science of Ideas.” He lives in Camden.