this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
58 points (89.2% liked)

Palestine

1858 readers
588 users here now

A community to discuss everything Palestine.

Rules:

  1. Posts can be in Arabic or English.

  2. Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”

List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
Felicia@lemmy.ml
marmulak@lemmy.ml
58
The Nuclear Trolley Problem: How One Man Holds Eight Billion Hostage (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 day ago by Farid@freefree.ps to c/palestine@lemmy.ml
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Nuclear Trolley Problem: How One Man Holds Eight Billion Hostage

https://farid.ps/articles/nuclear/_trolley/_problem/en.html

@palestine@lemmy.ml
@palestine@a.gup.pe
#Palestine #Gaza

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Majestic@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This is false. The west helps because it wants to. The west helps because "israel" acts as a military garrison and outpost to project power across the middle east for them (specifically the US who having totally fucked Europe in trade deals and on many other issues shows themselves to be the master of the entire west). The west helps because they want to help white looking people genocide and colonize brown people because they've done so themselves for centuries and fully believe the "savage natives" narrative against the "civilized Europeans". The west helps because Europe can pretend its holocaust guilt. The west helps because deep down many want all the Jews over there and not back in Europe because they are antisemitic. The west helps because "israel" ran Jeffery Epstein and probably other pedophile networks to get blackmail material on elites in the west.

The west does not help because they have nukes. The west allowed them to get those nukes. They were "stolen" from the US, the material to start their breeder reactors along with critical knowledge. The US could if it wishes take out "israel" using maximum force but it is useful to the US so it not only lives it is propped up and given bipartisan support while suppression of speech of those against it occurs.

Do NOT reverse the roles here. The west created "israel", they watched idly as it conducted its genocide before it ever had nukes, they supported it, they justified it, they blamed the Palestinian victims. The west is not some victim of extortion here, it created this monster, it supported it, even now without it the entity would collapses.

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 4 points 23 hours ago

Very much well-put. The Euroanglo-zionazis in occupied Palestine are NOT just some astral projection of the West or a separate identity from Westerners. They are Europeans, there are anglos, they share the same languages and deranged thought when it comes to ethnically cleansing indigenous populations (US, South America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc..) and 70+ years passing by will NOT change that.

This is why "Israelis" shouldn't even be used as a term to refer to the settler-colonialists in occupied Palestine, regardless of how many opportunist dogs of the West that aren't European there are, because it washes away responsibility from the West in case they want to pull out of their settler-colonial project without any consequences.

Currently Western regimes are """trying""" to do just that because their project isn't working as they hoped it would..

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Agreed 100%

Also, I hate this narrative that, "if only we got rid of the one insane man (Netanyahu), this nightmare would be over."

Israel has had the same goals of ethnic cleansing Palestine for decades, long before Netanyahu entered the picture. Removing him would treat a symptom, but not the problem itself.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

States tend to get the leaders that they deserve. Plenty of Israelis hate Netanyahu and what he's doing, but also, plenty more of them (a majority) do not.

See also Trump. 😢

[–] hologram@cyberplace.social 1 points 1 day ago

@Majestic @Farid The instant reason was so Truman could get elected on Zionazi dollars. By ignoring all of his advisors, he became the first AIPAC queen.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You have some good info in your comment, but I believe the reasoning counters the original claim that the OP is false. Yes, the West created Israel, allowed them to steal and develop technology that resulted in a nuclear rogue state, and continues to supply them. However, I also agree that the circumstances involving Jeffrey Epstein show evidence that Israel is either responsible for, or deeply involved with, a blackmail operation of political elite using pedophile networks and likely whatever else it could. Also, I agree that Israel is currently an illegally-armed nuclear armed country.

Unfortunately, they also have Jericho III missiles with a max range estimated to be 11,500 km (distance to central US from Israel directly). They also have a fleet of Dolphin-class submarines that can be operating along any coastline. Straight from the Jericho Wikipedia page:

After a successful missile test launch conducted in early 2008, Israeli weapons expert General Itzhak Ben-Israel, former chairman of the Israeli Space Agency at the Ministry of Science, said "Everybody can do the mathematics... we can reach with a rocket engine to every point in the world", thus appearing to confirm Israel's new capability. Israeli Ministry of Defense officials said that the 2008 test launch represented a "dramatic leap in Israel's missile technologies".

Israel is acting unhinged: committing genocide, murdering journalists, settling occupied land, and torturing prisoners (all war-crimes). To quote Israeli General Moshe Dayan, "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." This is that 'mad dog' behavior. It's a tool that makes people believe they might actually follow through something as crazy as the Samson option. To me, their leadership seams willing and they absolutely have the means. However, this is only possible because of that 'mad dog' image. As soon as people recognize that a 'mad dog' is collared, securely chained, and unable to do them harm, they can continue on without fear.

Israel operates with a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Their possession of nuclear weapons has never been formally acknowledged and they have not agreed to the restrictions outlined in the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Once they do come clean, and agree to the same terms as other nuclear superpowers, the "mad dog" image will fade. Only then will other countries stop fearing the possibility of being nuked due to the chain of events that would begin with a reversal on global support.

Regardless, I do hope countries in the west take action to stop these atrocities. It would be even better if Israel would come clean and make official agreements with other nuclear-armed countries, but I won't hold my breath. History should judge the west for the involvement in creating this monster. However, at this stage I think it's an understatement to say "the cat is out of the bag." Israel's actions are so atrocious, and they need to be held accountable themselves.

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

~~Cool. Now cite a single source and dont use AI to "help" you write it.~~

source cited. AI making it harder to relate to this information as a human still sucks tho

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's complete books on the subject cited in the Wikipedia article.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think most nuclear-armed states would use their nuclear weapons if someone was trying to destroy them completely. That's very different from claiming that if anyone tried to enact sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC warrants against Israel, or otherwise interfere with the genocide, Israel will nuke the world.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Of course, I agree that most countries would launch nuclear weapons if someone was trying to destroy them (likely with their own nuclear weapons in this context). This is the concept of mutually assured destruction. What makes the Samson option different is that Israeli leaders have expressed the intent to take out the entire world if Israel was ever facing total annihilation. This is a kind of "you either live with us, or not at all" mentality. I think this is one of the more interesting quotes from the Wikipedia article:

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.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

Contrary to your objection, I don't believe the OP is at all claiming that if anyone tried to enact sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC warrants against Israel, or otherwise interfere with the genocide, Israel would immediately nuke the world. It specifically claims Israel would respond in this way "if cornered". In this context, I interpret "cornered" as in backed into a corner with no way out, by an aggressive party who seeks Israels destruction. Otherwise, the cornered description falls flat if Israel can just sidestep the threat and continue on it's way. However, still nobody want's to take that first step towards anything comparable to a "mad dog". For example, if the US stopped delivering defensive weaponry to Israel, how can they continue their offensive campaign without fear of retribution by another party? It's not a stretch to believe some world leaders and their advisors are actually thinking multiple steps ahead and not just on the immediate consequences of their actions.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What makes the Samson option different is that Israeli leaders have expressed the intent to take out the entire world if Israel was ever facing total annihilation.

I think that's true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.

I don't believe the OP is at all claiming that if anyone tried to enact sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC warrants against Israel, or otherwise interfere with the genocide, Israel would immediately *nuke the world. It specifically claims Israel would respond in this way "if cornered". In this context, I interpret "cornered" as in backed into a corner with no way out, by an aggressive party who seeks Israels destruction.

Read the second paragraph again. OP is claiming that Western leaders are not sanctioning Israel in the fairly mild ways described because they're afraid of nuclear war.

I do think that without Western military assistance (and more to the point deterrence), Israel with its current course of conduct might be destroyed by its neighbors. But that and "stay the course" aren't the only two options. I actually think that it would be way safer, in terms of global nuclear security, if Western countries forcibly stopped the genocide Israel is conducting. As it is, that scenario where Israel is getting overrun by regional enemies and throwing nukes (at them or at other targets) sounds not too unlikely as years go by and things change, with everyone remembering what they did. And so I interpreted OP as saying that if someone tried for the enforced peace agreement, or the war crimes trials, nukes.

I do think that fear of Israel getting overrun is the source of some of that unwavering military and deterrence assistance that keeps them alive and safe to do whatever they want. I don't think it is what is stopping Western leaders from punishing Israel for their current genocide. I think they just don't want to (or don't have the political will embedded in their systems that it would take to get it done), honestly.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Functionally speaking, yes, nuking the entire world is an option for any thermonuclear-armed state; and even M.A.D. would be incredibly consequential for the rest of the world. However, this is very different from a policy of directly nuking cities of non-involved countries.

I believe the difference between Israel and other thermonuclear states is that the others have officially announced their possession of nuclear weapons, and the vast majority have signed treaties and agreed to restrictions/oversights as outlined in the OP. To copy from my last response in this post:

Israel is acting unhinged: committing genocide, murdering journalists, settling occupied land, and torturing prisoners (all war-crimes). To quote Israeli General Moshe Dayan, "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." This is that 'mad dog' behavior. It's a tool that makes people believe they might actually follow through something as crazy as the Samson option. To me, their leadership seams willing and they absolutely have the means. However, this is only possible because of that 'mad dog' image. As soon as people recognize that a 'mad dog' is collared, securely chained, and unable to do them harm, they can continue on without fear.

Israel operates with a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Their possession of nuclear weapons has never been formally acknowledged and they have not agreed to the restrictions outlined in the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Once they do come clean, and agree to the same terms as other nuclear superpowers, the 'mad dog' image will fade. Only then will other countries stop fearing the possibility of being nuked due to the chain of events that would begin with a reversal on global support.

As for re-reading the second paragraph: this doesn't change my mind on the OP premise. It seems pretty obvious that the western powers have yet to intervene in any meaningful way. As to a one of the many reasons why, this is outlined in the third paragraph, which believe I addressed in the quoted section above.

Yet, I also agree that Israel's destruction and "stay the course" (which also involves a lot of destruction) aren't the only two options. My preference is that Israel's leadership grows a conscience and stops trying to bomb their neighbors into peace. However, in the absence of this, western powers should intervene. Whether it's through sanctions, embargoes, or other political red lines, steps should be taken to get us away from the two destructive extremes and towards an outcome that minimizes further loss of life and liberty. I believe the post does a good job highlighting these options in the second paragraph. The rest of the post exposes one of the many reasons why countries might want to be cautious with Israeli diplomacy.

Ultimately, I hope for more nuclear-weapon transparency from armed countries and for Israel to come clean and agree to the same inspections and restrictions as other nuclear superpowers. There should be civilian oversight, a "two-key" (minimum) launch protocol, public doctrine, and external inspections as listed in the OP.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I believe the difference between Israel and other thermonuclear states

Israel is not a thermonuclear state, unless I missed something very very big.

It seems pretty obvious that the western powers have yet to intervene in any meaningful way.

To me, too, I just don't think that OP's explanation is why.

My preference is that Israel's leadership grows a conscience and stops trying to bomb their neighbors into peace. However, in the absence of this, western powers should intervene. Whether it's through sanctions, embargoes, or other political red lines, steps should be taken

Completely agreed. Didn't OP say that this might result in widespread nuclear annihilation, though? That's part of why I disagree with OP on the thesis of this post.

It seems like we're kind of going in circles. The individual elements of what you're saying generally make quite a lot of sense to me and I agree, I'm just having trouble connecting it to what OP seems like they're saying. Since they don't seem really inclined to come in here and defend what they were on about, IDK how productive it is for you and me to talk about it.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just to be clear, I haven't used "thermonuclear" in any other of my responses in this post, and was only doing so in this single instance to respond directly to your text here (emphasis mine):

I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.

As for the 'talking past each other': I can't speak for both of us, but I don't see the OP as an absolute claim of cause-effect. Instead, it reads to me as just another one of the many reasons why no serious political actions have been taken against Israel.

In the reasons listed "why?'", OP also lists Israel being a rogue nuclear-armed state, and that Netanyahu has been acting unhinged. I can't argue against those claims. Even the mere existence of the Samson-option concept can only add more fuel to this already deadly fire. I can't reasonable say that after reading this, that I believe the OP is trying to say that any sanction, embargo, or red line would result in the instant nuclear destruction of the world. However, I appreciate that this post calls attention to the inactions of western countries, and lists some of the tangible benefits we would see if Israel came clean and signed the UN nuclear treaties. Also, if the threat of the Samson-option is sincere, people should know about it.

It would be nice if the real OP was available to expand upon their message. However, even without them I don't think it's unproductive to try to talk these details out. As someone who mostly lurks, I appreciate reading other's public conversations here. Cheers!

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just to be clear, I haven't used "thermonuclear" in any other of my responses in this post, and was only doing so in this single instance to respond directly to your text here (emphasis mine):

I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.

Yeah, because not every nuclear-armed state could effectively end the world if they got in an existential armed conflict. I think every thermonuclear state could (and likely would). That's what I meant by that.

Not much to add to the rest of it, but I said it in the precise way I did for a precise reason.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I agree that not every nuclear-armed state could end the world. However with Israel's estimated warhead count and delivery options, their actions could get effectively close. They are undisputedly in the top 10 countries by warhead quantity and more likely in the top 5 (but we won't know for sure without external inspectors). With 200+ of the worlds largest cities bombed and the resulting radiation fallout, life on Earth would never be the same. I don't believe any imprecision was accumulated.

I'm glad we seem to agree on the bigger concepts rather than the semantics of this one footnote.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They are undisputedly in the top 10 countries by warhead quantity and more likely in the top 5

Of course they're in the top 10, because there are only 9 nuclear armed countries.

And to be in the top five they'd have to have a bigger arsenal than India, Pakistan, and the UK, which no estimates suggest.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The sources cited on Wikipedia estimate up to 400.

Good call on the 9 max though! Maybe I should gotten to bed a little earlier last night 😆.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

more likely in the top 5

They definitely are not.

I think you don't actually have knowledge about this stuff and are just kind of spinning out theories... I mean, it's fine, I am not particularly expert and am just kind of speculating also according to my lack of knowledge. But some of the stuff you are saying is just objectively immediately visible as not true, and it makes me question your judgement about broader and more subjective conclusions.

Yes, Israel bad, nukes bad, crazy people running countries in the Mideast and getting away with mass murder is bad. We should stop having nukes, at some point; if global warming doesn't get us, something someday is going to be wrong and it's going to be real real bad.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

The second sentence here contains:

Estimates of Israel's stockpile range from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads,[2][5][6][7][8][9][15][19]

The 200 estimate is at the lower 1/3 of this range. If they happen to be at the upper end of the range, they would exceed France and the UK and would be in the top 5. Unfortunately, we won't know for sure because of the lack of transparency with Israels nuclear program. Is there something else you think I'm objectively wrong about?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Look at the chart. You literally pulled "probably in the top 5" completely out of nowhere, and you've now admitted that while saying this stuff you had no real idea in mind how many nuclear-armed states there are in the world.

I have no interest in continuing a back-and-forth with you or opening up new lines of argument to bicker about. You've stated your case, congratulations. Read more. Study.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago

I was referencing the linked sources estimating 90-400 when I said that. With that range, there is considerable potential for Israel to have the 4th or 5th largest stockpile. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, and have been linking to the sources for all my claims.

Thanks for coming to the table with your first source though.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

the trolly problem involves a choice and i doubt very much that any of the leaders of the governments could stop the genocide would ever chose if they were given a the choice.