Samson, Hannibal, Sodom and Gomorrah Directives and Options -- Immorality Carte Blanche, Israel

In Amos God tells the Israelites that although he treated them like Sodom and Gomorrah, they still did not repent.

These are sick puppies, perverted to the max, and the Jewish Penis Piano Man, ZioAzovNaziLensky, he’s hoping for some Samson option.

Delilah Option. Jews in Drag, what a legacy!

Our hero:

So we will continue to live in a society where the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” has been revised to “Thou shalt not kill Jews.” 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel’s ship of state, facing rough seas, is at high risk and requires clearer rules of navigation. During this period of deep complexity, Israel will need to clarify its strategic direction. The terrorists of Hamas are the tip of Iran’s much larger spear. Israel’s current war against jihadist criminality could thus turn into a wider and more damaging war with Iran. Such a war could emerge as a “bolt from the blue” or incrementally. Ultimately, it could involve the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, and/or North Korea. How might Jerusalem prevent or manage any such derivative conflicts? Israel must consider whether there is a productive role to be played by the “Samson Option.”

When taken together with Israel’s intentionally ambiguous nuclear strategy, an outdated doctrine commonly referred to as “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” or “Israel’s bomb in the basement” (amimut in Hebrew), more compelling threat postures could prove effective. To be truly promising, however, an Israeli Samson Option would need to 1) coincide with an incremental and selective end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and 2) pertain to Iran directly, not just to terrorist proxies. There are no conceivable circumstances in which Samson could offer Israel useful applications regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, or any other jihadist foes.

For nearly two decades, military censorship kept the directive, also known as the Hannibal Procedure or Hannibal Protocol, under wraps. It allows the Israeli military to use any force necessary to prevent Israeli soldiers from being captured and taken into enemy territory – up to and including action that will lead to those captives’ deaths.

In 1986, Israeli army commanders drew up the doctrine after three soldiers from the infantry Givati Brigade were captured by the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

At that time, Israel occupied a southern region of Lebanon, invading the country in 1982. Hezbollah captured soldiers patrolling this zone, which would remain under Israeli occupation until 2000.

During that incident, members of the brigade saw a vehicle getting away with their fellow soldiers but did not open fire. The directive came in response to ensure this would never happen again.

The remains of the captured soldiers were returned to Israel in 1996 in exchange for the bodies of 123 Hezbollah fighters, according to the Israeli government.

The history of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) has reflected its geopolitical nature. This is best illustrated by the utter refusal of the nuclear weapons states, above all the US, to fulfill its core obligation under Article VI “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on The Legality of Nuclear Weapons unanimously affirmed in its findings the legal imperative embodied in Article VI: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament in all its aspects under strict international control.” — Richard Falk

[As such, this study examines the following question: would an Israeli tactical nuclear strike be permissible under Jewish law? In answering this question, this paper will first define what tactical nuclear weapons are and the role they would fill in Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Second, it will establish a threshold of the most likely scenario in which Israel would use a tactical nuclear weapon against an adversary. Finally, it will test the established scenario from section two against the parameters Jewish law regulates for warfare conduct to determine if such a strike would be permissible.]

The world’s most immoral “army.”

Zelensky picking the brains of Adolph Netanyahu:

Kiev Regime/US Escalates Long-Range War Inside Russia with Little Result

Cackling hell of the Emoff-Yellen-Zyklon Blinken kind.

Big protest, no?

Finger painting for Goyim:

Sheep Dogging Adolph:

Slaughtering them forever.

Bat Mitzvahs and Bar Mitzvahs, a la Himmler.

Link.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has a motive to, if not deliberately cause, then to at least risk an incident. Kiev would use it for information war purposes: to blame Moscow, frighten Ukraine’s own Western partners, and seek what the Zelensky regime always seeks, namely ever-deeper involvement of the West in a war that Ukraine is losing. In addition, Ukraine has politicians as well as military and intelligence officers who are entirely capable of hatching a scheme that would accept the fallout, literally, from such sabotage as long as it seems to offer strategic benefit.

Don’t think that’s possible? Recall what we in the West have just been permitted to learn and now even say about the Nord Stream attacks of September 2022, which also constituted a massive ecological catastrophe. Ukraine was heavily involved (although certainly not alone, as Western mainstream media now ask us to believe), its politicians, media, and Western “friends” brazenly lied about all of it, and, finally, they all blamed Russia, as absurd as that has always been. 

See the parallels? Only that a nuclear incident would be much worse again, of course. It is not the IAEA’s job, but that of Ukraine’s Western sponsors in Washington and its clients to warn off Kiev. They will most likely fail to do so, but in a better world, this time the Zelensky regime would be told in advance to abandon its insane and selfish schemes. This needs to happen not behind closed doors but publicly, so that even Zelensky and company – all of them – get the memo. And it must come with credible threats, not against Moscow but Kiev. For no one can be allowed to play with nuclear fire.

Fucking EuroTrashLandia!

Ahh, … “Without essence, the Jew is, like Woody Allen’s Zelig, a chameleon. His relationship to national identity is performative and doesn’t draw on the mystical relationship with the land. It is, for this reason, not to be trusted. . . .”

Oh, those people control the “media” and surveillence capitalism:

Right to the headquarters of Mossad and Fuckerberg:

In the US, many stadiums that are venues for games played as part of professional leagues are already using what reports call "advanced systems," while companies like Denso Wave are emerging as key sellers.

Ahh, the killing fields are the proving grounds:

After the current genocide ends — if it ever ends — we Palestinian citizens of Israel will be living in a society full of young people who spent the past year fighting in Gaza, where there are no restrictions or regulations on what they can do to Palestinians. We are to live beside the people who sexually abused Palestinian prisoners in the notorious Sde Teiman prison without punishment; beside the right-wing extremists who called them heroes and rallied to their defense; and beside the cowardly “leftists” who simply prefer that they don’t do such things “while the Hague is watching.” 

Tel Aviv, Silicon Wadi, Little Tel Aviv, wherever Judaic diaspora goes?

Later Hebrew prophets named the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as adultery,^[48] pridefulness,^[19] and uncharitableness.^[49]

Rictor Norton views classical Jewish texts as stressing the cruelty and lack of hospitality of the inhabitants of Sodom to the "stranger".^[68] Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy, and bloodshed.^[69] Other extrabiblical crimes committed by Sodom and Gomorrah included extortion on crossing a bridge/or swimming a river, harshly punishing victims for crimes that the perpetrator committed, forcing an assault victim to pay for the perpetrator's "bleeding"^[70] and forcing a woman to marry a man who intentionally caused her miscarriage to compensate for the lost child. Because of this, the judges of the two cities were referred to as Shakrai ("Liar"), Shakurai ("Awful Liar"), Zayyafi ("Forger") and Mazle Dina ("Perverter of Justice"). Eliezer was reported to be a victim of such legally unjust conduct, after Sarah sent him to Sodom to report on Lot's welfare. The citizens also regularly tortured foreigners who sought lodging. They did this by providing the foreigners a standard-sized bed and if they saw that the foreigners were too short for the beds, they would forcibly stretch their limbs but if the foreigners were too tall, they would cut off their legs (the Greek myth of Procrustes tells a similar story).^[71][72] As a result, many people refrained from visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Beggars who settled into the two cities for refuge were similarly mistreated. The citizens would give them marked coins (presumably used to purchase food) but were nonetheless forbidden, by proclamation, to provide these necessary services. Once the beggar died of starvation, citizens who initially gave the beggar the coins were permitted to retrieve them, provided that they could recognize it. The beggar's clothing was also provided as a reward for any citizen who could successfully overcome his opponent in a street fight.^[73][70]

The provision of bread and water to the poor was also a capital offense (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well, and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive (ib.).^[74] According to the Book of Jasher, Paltith, one of Lot's daughters, was burnt alive (in some versions, on a pyre) for giving a poor man bread.^[75] Her cries went to the heavens.^[70] Another woman was similarly executed in Admah for giving a traveler, who intended to leave the town the next day, water. When the scandal was revealed, the woman was stripped naked and covered with honey. This attracted bees as the woman was slowly stung to death. Her cries then went up into the heavens, the turning point that was revealed to have provoked God to enact judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah in the first place in Genesis 18:20.^[76][73] Lot's wife (who came from Sodom) had disapproved of her husband welcoming the strangers into their home; her asking for salt from neighbors had alerted the mob which came to Lot's door. As punishment she was turned into a pillar of salt.^[77]

Jon D. Levenson views a rabbinic tradition described in the Mishnah as postulating that the sin of Sodom was a violation of conventional hospitality in addition to homosexual conduct, describing Sodom's lack of generosity with the saying, "What is mine is mine; what is yours is yours" (m. Avot 5.10).^[78]

Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."^[79] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,^[80] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1–11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);^[81] and Ezekiel 16:49–50,^[82] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".