What a fascinating standard.
I’m curious, does this mean that you would consider China to be absolved of responsibility for arming Pol Pot, who used their weapons to murder millions of innocent people, on the basis that they never expressly told him to do it, and “merely” kept arming him while it was clear that that was what he was doing? Because I’m pretty sure that kind of apologia would catch you a ban even in the tankiest of tankie spaces, and rightly so. But switch out China and Pol Pot for the US and Netanyahu, and dronies consider not taking that position to be “misinformation.”
They’re way more one-sided about the “war” (genocide) than I imagine the vast majority of Muslim and pro-Palestinian voters are, just in the wrong direction. What part of unconditionally supplying weapons to a country that is indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is “not one sided,” oh “rational_lib?”