Vast majority of Israelis said they were not troubled at all by reports, with a majority saying Israel's army was careful to avoid civilian suffering

The vast majority of Israelis say they are not troubled by reports of famine and suffering in Gaza, a new poll released by the Israel Democracy Institute shows.

The survey shows that 79 percent of Jews in Israel were not troubled, or troubled at all, whereas 86 percent of “Arab” respondents were somewhat or very troubled by the reports about the war on Gaza.

The survey was conducted between 27-31 July.

  • herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.mlEnglish
    132·
    2 days ago

    Israel is full of religious fanatics who would happily kill everyone on this planet. Have you heard of Operation Samson?

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      52·
      2 days ago

      It’s the Samson option, they’ve never done it. And MAD has been policy for any number of nations.

      Is Israel deep into an ethnic conflict spiral, and fairly devoid of empathy for the other side? Yes. Is it all religious fanatics? No, that’s a minority. Secular Zionism is a thing too.

      • YTG123@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        1·
        9 hours ago

        Yes. Is it all religious fanatics? No, that’s a minority. Secular Zionism is a thing too.

        Kind of? Zionism started as a secular movement, and although Israel still has a secular majority, we’ve seen a kind of inversion where the religious Zionists have become the most extreme and committed. Don’t get me wrong: Zionism is still dependent on the consent and support of the secular majority, and wouldn’t be able to achieve anything without it, but now it’s largely being pulled further right by the religious branch,

      • AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8·
        1 day ago

        The Samson option is far worse than mutually assured destruction. Instead of retaliatory strikes against the sole country which launches nukes first, Isreal plans to nuke major cities all around the globe if they are ever nuked. They have already used this threat to coerce other countries into supporting them.

        In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Nixon that “very serious conclusions” may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          14·
          2 days ago

          This is also in there:

          against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.

          I’ve never heard anyone else suggest it would be aimless.

          • kreskin@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 hours ago

            against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.

            thats BS. Their patterns of action demonstrate pretty clearly that they dont follow any rules. They just state their intentions and if anyone of any country or military are killed going about their goals, they just shrug. Theyve killed plenty or people from across the world, and emptied out christian enclaves, and they couldnt care less about the human rights of anyone. Its not just palestinians they will kill, its anyone.

            They are drunk with US support and they dont have to pretend to care anymore, so they arent. Just like maga republicans. They are angry they had to pretend to be civilized for so long up to now.

          • AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            8·
            2 days ago

            Sure, it would include countries which threaten them directly, but it is not limited to that. As per the quoted section, Israel’s government has already threatened to nuke the USA if we did not continue supplying them with military aid. There is a reason this policy is not just called MAD. It’s something entirely different.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              1·
              1 day ago

              I would interpret that paragraph as a threat to nuke Arab countries (13 times, maybe), which would be bad, and would also have major political and economic fallout for Nixon. Threatening the use of nukes against a non-nuclear country is questionable, but I think it’s also the US policy if invaded.

              I had assumed it was just called that for the Jewishness. The story of Samson is pretty MAD-ish, except that I don’t think his captors were warned - killing a bunch of Philistines was the point, because it was the bad old days.

              Come to think of it, did/do they even have a way of delivering nukes outside the region?

              • AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                2·
                1 day ago

                Here’s another article which contains more quotes from the same book Wikipedia cites:

                This doctrine is still in place today, as journalist Kit Klarenberg noted, “Dutch-born Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld boasted in September 2003” that “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…We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”.

                https://the307.substack.com/p/the-samson-option-how-israel-not

                Edit regarding your question: Yes, Isreal has multiple delivery options.

                Officials confirm that the nation can now launch atomic weapons from land, sea and air.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                  11·
                  1 day ago

                  Hmm, a bit of a suspect source. And I can’t find the primary source of this quote.

                  It does look like some of their boats and ships have global range, at least. If the Martin van Creveld quote is authentic, that would imply Rome is the edge of their missile range, which would make sense. I’m guessing Iran is just about as far.

                  • AlDente@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    2·
                    1 day ago

                    They absolutely have the capability. Even without their many aircraft capable of carrying nuclear bombs and fleet of nuclear-missile-carrying submarines, their Jericho III missiles have a range of 11,500 km. From that wiki page:

                    According to an official report that was submitted to the U.S. Congress in 2004, it may be that with a payload of 1,000 kg the Jericho III gives Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia and almost all parts of North America, as well as large parts of South America and North Oceania.

                    Regarding the Martin van Creveld quote, check this out.