Misplaced Pages

Samson Option: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:18, 3 November 2007 view sourceSmackBot (talk | contribs)3,734,324 editsm Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes← Previous edit Revision as of 11:52, 5 November 2007 view source Tewfik (talk | contribs)15,543 edits npovNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''The Samson Option''' is a term used to describe the most controversial of the strategies alleged to underlie ]'s development of a ]. This is a "last resort" ] of massive retaliation with ]s should the state of Israel be substantially damaged or destroyed. Such retaliation might involve targeting Arab or other nations considered enemies, and not just whichever countries had attacked Israel. Israel officially maintains a policy of ] as to whether it has nuclear weapons, but it is estimated it has as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons.<ref></ref> '''The Samson Option''' is a term used to describe the most controversial of the strategies alleged to underlie ]'s development of a ]. This is a "last resort" ] of massive retaliation with ]s should the state of Israel be substantially damaged or destroyed. Such retaliation might involve targeting Arab or other nations considered enemies, including in response to massive conventional attacks. Israel officially maintains a policy of ] as to whether it has nuclear weapons, but it is estimated it has as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons.<ref></ref>


According to American journalist ] in his best selling book ''The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy'', Israeli leaders like ], ] and ] created the term in the mid-1960s to describe one of their nuclear strategies. They named it after the Biblical figure ], who is said to have pushed apart the pillars of a ] temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated. They contrasted it with ancient siege of ] where 936 Jewish ] greatly outnumbered by Roman legions committed ] rather than be defeated and enslaved by the Romans.<ref>Seymour Hersh, ''The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy,'' Random House, 1991; 129, 136-137.</ref> According to American journalist ] in his best selling book ''The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy'', Israeli leaders like ], ] and ] created the term in the mid-1960s to describe one of their nuclear strategies. They named it after the Biblical figure ], who is said to have pushed apart the pillars of a ] temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated. They contrasted it with ancient siege of ] where 936 Jewish ] greatly outnumbered by Roman legions committed ] rather than be defeated and enslaved by the Romans.<ref>Seymour Hersh, ''The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy,'' Random House, 1991; 129, 136-137.</ref>


Additionally, some writers misidentify Israel’s whole nuclear weapons program as the "Samson Option".<ref>Examples include: Chris Hedges , Monday, October 9, 2006; George Perkovich, , a review of Michael Karpin’s book “The Bomb in the Basement” in the ''Washington Post'', February 19, 2006, BW03; , July 2, 2006.</ref> And in recent years the phrase has been applied to various situations where non-nuclear actors, such as Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat and Hezbollah threaten massive retaliation, and even to ] President ]'s foreign policy.<ref> Examples include: Herb Keinon, (used regarding Yassir Arafat’s conventional arms options); Tom Holsinger, "Staying Alive - Saddam's Samson Option," http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20020620.asp Additionally, some writers misidentify Israel’s whole nuclear weapons program as the "Samson Option".<ref>Examples include: Chris Hedges , Monday, October 9, 2006; George Perkovich, , a review of Michael Karpin’s book “The Bomb in the Basement” in the ''Washington Post'', February 19, 2006, BW03; , July 2, 2006.</ref> And in recent years the phrase has been applied to various situations where non-nuclear actors, such as Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat and Hezbollah threaten massive retaliation, and even to ] President ]'s foreign policy.<ref> Examples include: Herb Keinon, (used regarding Yassir Arafat’s conventional arms options); Tom Holsinger, "Staying Alive - Saddam's Samson Option," http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20020620.asp
June 20, 2002; Michael Young, Slate Magazine, Monday, August 7, 2006; Stephen Lendman, , March 12, 2007.</ref> June 20, 2002; Michael Young, Slate Magazine, Monday, August 7, 2006; Stephen Lendman, , March 12, 2007.</ref>


==Doctrine== ==Doctrine==
Israel’s deterrence doctrine is shaped by its small size, concentrated population, strategic vulnerability - and its abundance of opponents and enemies who accuse it of being a ] and ] state. They seek either to push it back to much smaller borders or replace it with another state, using both diplomatic and military means. The threat of massive nuclear retaliation is seen as a credible deterrence able to prevent Weapons of Mass Destruction attacks against Israel. Some consider such retaliation a variation on the ] strategy. However, unlike that strategy, it could be applied against non-nuclear Arab nations and against nations which had not attacked it. Israel’s deterrence doctrine is shaped by its small size, concentrated population, strategic vulnerability, and the abundance of opponents and enemies within the ] and beyond. They seek either to push it back to much smaller borders or replace it with another state, using both diplomatic and military means. The threat of massive nuclear retaliation is seen as a credible deterrence able to prevent ] attacks against Israel. Some consider such retaliation a variation on the ] strategy. However, unlike that strategy, it could be applied against non-nuclear Arab nations and against nations which had not attacked it.


According to historian Avner Cohen, at least limited use of nuclear weapons might be triggered by successful ] penetration of populated areas, destruction of the ], massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons.<ref>Avner Cohen, ''Israel and the Bomb'', Columbia University Press, 1998); 273-274.</ref> According to historian Avner Cohen, at least limited use of nuclear weapons might be triggered by successful ] penetration of populated areas, destruction of the ], massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons.<ref>Avner Cohen, ''Israel and the Bomb'', Columbia University Press, 1998); 273-274.</ref>
Seymour Hersh writes that during the ] two major uses of the weapons were to convince the ] to support Israel with conventional weapons and to discourage the former ] from arming and aiding Arab nations. Israel went on nuclear alert during the ] ] war to accomplish both goals. Hersh states that before Israel launched its own satellites it engaged in ] against the United States to obtain nuclear targeting information on Soviet targets.<ref>Hersh, 17, 40, 66, 174-75, 177, 216, 220, 223-230, 286, 291-296.</ref> Seymour Hersh writes that during the ] two major uses of the weapons were to convince the ] to support Israel with conventional weapons and to discourage the former ] from arming and aiding Arab nations. Israel went on nuclear alert during the 1973 ] to accomplish both goals. Hersh states that before Israel launched its own satellites it engaged in ] against the United States to obtain nuclear targeting information on Soviet targets.<ref>Hersh, 17, 40, 66, 174-75, 177, 216, 220, 223-230, 286, 291-296.</ref>


Israel did not use the nuclear option after ] attacked Israel with ]s during the 1991 ], but it did go on full-scale nuclear alert and mobile nuclear missile launchers were deployed.<ref>Hersh, 318.</ref> During the build up to the United States ], and after discussions with President George W. Bush, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned of possible massive retaliation should Iraq attack Israel. It is believed Bush gave Sharon the green-light to attack Baghdad, including with nuclear weapons, but only if attacks came before the American military invasion.<ref>Ross Dunn, "Sharon eyes 'Samson option' against Iraq," http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1223502002, November 3, 2002.</ref> Israel did not use the nuclear option after ] attacked Israel with ]s during the 1991 ], but it did go on full-scale nuclear alert and mobile nuclear missile launchers were deployed.<ref>Hersh, 318.</ref> During the build up to the United States ], and after discussions with President George W. Bush, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned of possible massive retaliation should Iraq attack Israel. It is believed Bush gave Sharon the green-light to attack Baghdad, including with nuclear weapons, but only if attacks came before the American military invasion.<ref>Ross Dunn, "Sharon eyes 'Samson option' against Iraq," http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1223502002, November 3, 2002.</ref>


Israel's nuclear doctrine has become increasingly preemptive in recent years against any possible attack with conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or even a potential conventional attack on Israel's weapons of mass destruction.<ref>Warner D. Farr, LTC, US Army, ; Louis Rene Beres, , 2003.</ref> Preemption is seen as a means of protecting ]s, of redrawing the map of the Middle East to increase Israel’s security and of ensuring an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.<ref>Hersh, 288-289; Warner D. Farr article.</ref> Louis Rene Beres, who contributed to ], urges Israel to pursue a doctrine that mirrors the preemptive nuclear policies of the United States, as revealed in the ].<ref>Louis Rene Beres, Parameters, Spring 2007, pp. 37-54.</ref> Israel's nuclear doctrine has become increasingly preemptive in recent years against any possible attack with conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or even a potential conventional attack on Israel's weapons of mass destruction.<ref>Warner D. Farr, LTC, US Army, ; Louis Rene Beres, , 2003.</ref> Preemption is seen as a means of protecting ]s, of redrawing the map of the Middle East to increase Israel’s security and of ensuring an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.<ref>Hersh, 288-289; Warner D. Farr article.</ref>{{verifysource}} ], who contributed to ], urges Israel to pursue a doctrine that mirrors the preemptive nuclear policies of the United States, as revealed in the ].<ref>Louis Rene Beres, Parameters, Spring 2007, pp. 37-54.</ref>


==Samson Option controversies== ==Samson Option controversies==
The Israeli Samson Option is controversial because Israeli leaders have stated or implied that if Israel was destroyed it would retaliate with nuclear weapons against the cities of Arab and other enemy nations which did not directly attack it. Speculation from prominent Israeli supporters, Jewish and Christian, on how Israel might wreak revenge continue to fuel this controversy. The Israeli Samson Option is controversial because Israeli leaders have stated or implied that if Israel was destroyed it would retaliate with nuclear weapons against the cities of Arab and other enemy nations which did not directly attack it.{{cn}} Speculation from prominent Israeli supporters, Jewish and Christian, on how Israel might wreak revenge continue to fuel this controversy.{{cn}}


===Quotes and citations=== ===Quotes and citations===

Revision as of 11:52, 5 November 2007

The Samson Option is a term used to describe the most controversial of the strategies alleged to underlie Israel's development of a nuclear weapons arsenal. This is a "last resort" deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons should the state of Israel be substantially damaged or destroyed. Such retaliation might involve targeting Arab or other nations considered enemies, including in response to massive conventional attacks. Israel officially maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity as to whether it has nuclear weapons, but it is estimated it has as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons.

According to American journalist Seymour Hersh in his best selling book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Israeli leaders like David Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan created the term in the mid-1960s to describe one of their nuclear strategies. They named it after the Biblical figure Samson, who is said to have pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated. They contrasted it with ancient siege of Masada where 936 Jewish Sicarii greatly outnumbered by Roman legions committed mass suicide rather than be defeated and enslaved by the Romans.

Additionally, some writers misidentify Israel’s whole nuclear weapons program as the "Samson Option". And in recent years the phrase has been applied to various situations where non-nuclear actors, such as Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat and Hezbollah threaten massive retaliation, and even to United States President George W. Bush's foreign policy.

Doctrine

Israel’s deterrence doctrine is shaped by its small size, concentrated population, strategic vulnerability, and the abundance of opponents and enemies within the Arab-Israeli conflict and beyond. They seek either to push it back to much smaller borders or replace it with another state, using both diplomatic and military means. The threat of massive nuclear retaliation is seen as a credible deterrence able to prevent weapons of mass destruction attacks against Israel. Some consider such retaliation a variation on the mutually assured destruction strategy. However, unlike that strategy, it could be applied against non-nuclear Arab nations and against nations which had not attacked it.

According to historian Avner Cohen, at least limited use of nuclear weapons might be triggered by successful Arab penetration of populated areas, destruction of the Israeli Air Force, massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons. Seymour Hersh writes that during the Cold War two major uses of the weapons were to convince the United States to support Israel with conventional weapons and to discourage the former Soviet Union from arming and aiding Arab nations. Israel went on nuclear alert during the 1973 Yom Kippur War to accomplish both goals. Hersh states that before Israel launched its own satellites it engaged in espionage against the United States to obtain nuclear targeting information on Soviet targets.

Israel did not use the nuclear option after Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the 1991 First Gulf War, but it did go on full-scale nuclear alert and mobile nuclear missile launchers were deployed. During the build up to the United States 2003 invasion of Iraq, and after discussions with President George W. Bush, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned of possible massive retaliation should Iraq attack Israel. It is believed Bush gave Sharon the green-light to attack Baghdad, including with nuclear weapons, but only if attacks came before the American military invasion.

Israel's nuclear doctrine has become increasingly preemptive in recent years against any possible attack with conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or even a potential conventional attack on Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Preemption is seen as a means of protecting Israeli settlements, of redrawing the map of the Middle East to increase Israel’s security and of ensuring an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Louis René Beres, who contributed to Project Daniel, urges Israel to pursue a doctrine that mirrors the preemptive nuclear policies of the United States, as revealed in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations.

Samson Option controversies

The Israeli Samson Option is controversial because Israeli leaders have stated or implied that if Israel was destroyed it would retaliate with nuclear weapons against the cities of Arab and other enemy nations which did not directly attack it. Speculation from prominent Israeli supporters, Jewish and Christian, on how Israel might wreak revenge continue to fuel this controversy.

Quotes and citations

In his book "The Samson Option", Seymour Hersh shares quotes from Israeli officials. A "former Israeli govt official" with "first hand knowledge of his government’s nuclear weapons program" told him: "We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us." In 1982 when the United States refused to provide sufficient diplomatic cover for Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Ariel Sharon said: "We are much more important than (Americans) think. We can take the middle east with us whenever we go." Hersh quotes at length from a 1976 article by leading neoconservative Norman Podhoretz in Commentary Magazine entitled "The Abandonment of Israel": "the Israelis would fight...with convention weapons for as long as they could, and if the tide were turning decisively against them, and if help in the form of resupply from the United States or any other guarantors were not forthcoming, it is safe to predict that they would fight with nuclear weapons in the end."

Some quotes are widely circulated by news, pro-Israel, anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic sites. One is former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s comment: "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."

Also widely circulated are lurid rhetoric by some Israel supporters. One example is a 2002 quote from Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’...We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."

Another widely cited statement is from Louisiana State University David Perlmutter in an April, 2002 OpEd article in the Los Angeles Times: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?" Two pro-Israel web sites SamsonBlinded.Org and Masada2000.Org promote Israel's use of the Samson Option.

Also controversial are quotes from Christian Zionists, many of whom encourage Israeli attacks on nations like Iran. It is believed that the goal of some may be to bring about Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Hal Lindsey, best-selling author of a number of books on the topic, recently wrote on a pro-Israel website: "Israel will not just meekly fade away into destruction. And it certainly won't die alone, even if it has to destroy itself in the process of nuking the Middle East...I once encountered Ariel Sharon in the Knesset in the late 1970s. I asked him if Israel still had a Masada Option. He boldly announced, "No longer 'Masada Option' - now 'Samson Option.'" Lindsey later wrote on a conservative web site: "In the event of its impending destruction, Israel's retaliatory plan involves taking the Middle East along with it." End Time Magazine repeated the refrain in a 2004 article: "When Israel picked the name, the Samson Option, she was notifying the world that, if she goes down, she will take her enemies down with her."

Israel supporters' claims it could "take down the world" are based on its ability to strike Russian cities, thereby starting a world nuclear war. As Seymour Hersh revealed in "The Samson Option", Israel considered the former Soviet Union as its biggest enemy because of its diplomatic and military support for the Arabs. It developed the ability to hit Russian targets as early as 1971. Before launching its own spy satellites, Israel engaged in espionage on the United States in order to get accurate nuclear targeting information for cities in Western Russia.

Today Russia provides diplomatic and military support for Arab nations and for the nuclear program of Iran. In January 2007 Israeli officials voiced "extreme concern" over Russia's sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Their statement, "We hope they understand that this is a threat that could come back to them as well", could be read as a threat against Russia itself. Israel has blamed tensions with Syria on Russia.

Tom Ambrose, in a WorldNetDaily.Com article entitled "Big, bad Israel?" explicitly states that the United States also might be destroyed: "For if the day should ever arrive that Israel is destroyed by its enemies, the U.S. will surely and shortly thereafter meet its own demise." This may refer to likely Russian retaliation on Israel's allies in Europe and on the United States for any Israeli nuclear attack on Russia. The United States, of course, would respond in kind.

See also

References

  1. U.S. Air Force: Israel has 400 nukes, building naval force
  2. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991; 129, 136-137.
  3. Examples include: Chris Hedges Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse, Monday, October 9, 2006; George Perkovich, “The Samson Option: The story behind one of the world's worst-kept secrets: the Jewish state's atomic arsenal”, a review of Michael Karpin’s book “The Bomb in the Basement” in the Washington Post, February 19, 2006, BW03; Press Release: Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host Paul McGuire Has Called President Bush To More Actively Support The Nation Of Israel, And Work For Peace In The Middle East, July 2, 2006.
  4. Examples include: Herb Keinon, Selling the 'Samson option' (used regarding Yassir Arafat’s conventional arms options); Tom Holsinger, "Staying Alive - Saddam's Samson Option," http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20020620.asp June 20, 2002; Michael Young, The Samson Option, Is Hezbollah on the verge of destroying Lebanon? Slate Magazine, Monday, August 7, 2006; Stephen Lendman, George Bush's Samson Option, March 12, 2007.
  5. Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia University Press, 1998); 273-274.
  6. Hersh, 17, 40, 66, 174-75, 177, 216, 220, 223-230, 286, 291-296.
  7. Hersh, 318.
  8. Ross Dunn, "Sharon eyes 'Samson option' against Iraq," http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1223502002, November 3, 2002.
  9. Warner D. Farr, LTC, US Army, "The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons"; Louis Rene Beres, Israel's Bomb in the Basement: Reconsidering a Vital Element of Israeli Nuclear Deterrence, 2003.
  10. Hersh, 288-289; Warner D. Farr article.
  11. Louis Rene Beres, Israel’s Uncertain Strategic Future Parameters, Spring 2007, pp. 37-54.
  12. Hersh, 42, 137, 289; also see http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=5685.
  13. Mark Gaffney, Dimona: The Third Temple? The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation, Amana Books, 1989; 165.
  14. David Hirst, The War Game, a controversial view of the current crisis in the Middle East, The Observer Guardian, September 21, 2003.
  15. Yitzak Benhoin, Christian Zionists: Ahmadinejad is new Hitler, July 18, 2007.
  16. Gary North, The Foreign Policy of 20 Million Would-Be Immortals, July 19, 2003.
  17. Hal Lindsey, The Samson Option, July 14, 2007.]
  18. Hal Lindsey, Prophesied destruction of Damascus imminent?, WorldNetDaily.Com, September 21, 2007.
  19. End Time Magazine, Nov./Dec. 2004.
  20. Hersh, 17, 66, 174-75, 177, 216, 220, 286.
  21. Herb Keinon, "Jerusalem sees Russian interests behind arms sales to Damascus, The Jerusalem Post, August 20, 2007; Michael Jasinski, Russia's Nuclear and Missile Technology Assistance to Iran; Nasser Karimi, Russian Fuel Ready for Iran, Associated Press, September 16, 2007.
  22. Yaakov Katz and Herb Keinon, Israel warns Russia on Iran arms sale, Jerusalem Post, January 16, 2007
  23. Israel blames tension with Syria on Russia, Agence France Presse (AFP), August 31, 2007
  24. Tom Ambrose, Big, Bad Israel? September 2, 2003.
  25. *H. Brown column item on “Samson Option”

External links

Categories: