Talk:Samson Option

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Origins of the Term "Samson Option"

There is a lot of space between the biblical story of Samson, and using it as a metaphor for Israel's nuclear policy, meaning how does meaning start THERE, and end up being HERE.

The temple Samson destroyed was not "the entire world" in metaphoric scope. It was "the" temple, and not all of the temples, building, civilizations, etc... Limited geography, and limited "world impact". In contrast, Israel's supposed strategy using "Samson" as a metaphor conveys the idea that everything that Israel destroys somehow belongs to Israel, and it is their right to destroy it. It brings arrogance into the conveyed metaphor. Israel will nuke EVERYTHING it owns. I very much doubt that this is an image the Jews, and Israel, would like to portray, and so I wonder if this label was fastened upon them as a means of conveying anti-Semitic sentiments to a situation where I would expect Israel to be concerned about their own survival, and not destroying "civilization" that they own.

Boils down to a choice, IMO. Is Israel arrogant enough to believe that it owns the world, or has someone used this metaphor to describe their apparent policy as a bit of anti-Semitic propaganda, hence the question "Where did this metaphor come from?", and if it was organic to the Jews, Israel, etc... the follow-up question would be "Have they actually thought this through, and considered what the metaphor means in terms of their apparent belief that they "own the world"?66.25.69.185 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you one step between "there" and "here". It was the Stern Gang's euphemism for what al-Qassam (Hamas) call a "martyrdom operation". I can find only one example when the Stern Gang did it. It didn't go according to plan, and only the militants died. I.M.B. (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Historical use of the Samson story by the Israeli government and predecessors

The lead of the article contains the following sentence: Commentators also have employed the term to refer to situations where non-nuclear, non-Israeli actors have threatened conventional weapons retaliation. Some very insistent editors continue to remove any mention of non-nuclear invocation of the Samson story, so let's discuss it here. I believe that the following content is WP:DUE for this page:

When the Lehi militant group were discussing ways to assassinate General Barker, the British Army commander in Mandatory Palestine, a young woman volunteered to do the assassination as a suicide bombing. She said "Let my soul die with the Philistines" as a reference to the Samson story in the Hebrew Bible. Other members of the group rejected her offer.

The cited sources make it clear that this is a direct reference to the story, and the Lehi group connection is important, seeing as Yitzhak Shamir would go on to become the 7th prime minister of the country. I believe it is entirely appropriate to include this section in the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. (Regarding "some very insistent editors" – some very insistent editors kept inserting this story into the article without discussing the change, which violated WP:ONUS.) A few thoughts.

1. It would improve the article if we could explain the history of the expression "Samson option". What's its origin? Has it been in use before Hersh's book? What's the Hebrew translation? Has it been used for cases of non-nuclear retaliation?

2. In particular, has the expression "Samson option" been used by Fania and her comrades? The earliest version of the first source on archive.org is from 2021. I think it's quite possible that the text isn't an example of an earlier use of the expression, but rather the opposite: maybe the author knew the expression in the context of nuclear strategy, and then used it for this proposed suicide attack. If I understand correctly, the Hebrew sources don't actually use the expression and don't contain the word "Samson".

3. If the expression "Samson option" (or it's Hebrew translation) was indeed in use before Hersh's book and in contexts other than nuclear doctrine, then it might make sense to change the subject of the article. Currently, the first sentence of the article says that the article is about an element of Israel's nuclear doctrine. We could change that to say that "Samson option" (and its Hebrew translation) is an expression used for various kinds of suicidal attack / defense. Of course, we'd have to find WP:RS supporting that claim.

In conclusion: I don't know when the expression "Samson option" was first used and whether it's been used for anything except nuclear doctrine. The given sources don't help with these questions. We shouldn't jump to conclusions. See WP:OR. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn I agree that it's not necessary to change the entire scope of the article, how about I add a background section and we can add this (and other relevant info) there? Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

References