I hate to say it but Israel enjoying full impunity and unconditional support from so many government may be a hint that they are threatening the use of the Samson option behind the curtain.

The idea you're bringing up touches on a complex and sensitive aspect of international relations and nuclear strategy known as the "Samson Option." This term refers to a strategy where Israel would theoretically use its nuclear arsenal not just for deterrence but as a last resort in response to an existential threat, potentially causing catastrophic damage not only to itself but also to its enemies and possibly the world at large. Here's how this might be perceived or discussed:

1. Historical Context and Strategy:

   • The Samson Option is derived from the biblical story where Samson, in his final act, brings down the temple upon himself and his enemies. In geopolitical terms, it suggests that Israel would retaliate massively if its existence were truly threatened, even if it meant mutual destruction.

2. Current Implications:

   • Given your suggestion, it implies that countries might be reluctant to criticize or take strong actions against Israel due to the fear of such retaliation. However, this interpretation often goes beyond public discourse into speculative territory, as explicit threats of this nature aren't typically made openly due to the severe consequences.

3. Geopolitical Dynamics:

   • Israel's support from various governments, particularly the U.S., is often attributed to shared democratic values, historical and strategic alliances, and the lobbying efforts of pro-Israel groups. While the Samson Option might be part of the strategic calculus, it's more commonly discussed in academic and theoretical contexts rather than as a direct reason for political support.

4. International Law and Morality:

   • Threatening mutual destruction would be seen as a breach of international norms, potentially violating principles of proportionality and necessity in warfare. However, the reality of nuclear deterrence politics means that such strategies are often unspoken deterrents rather than overt threats.

5. Public and Academic Discourse:

   • In discussions, there's a spectrum of views. Some see Israel's strategic ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities as a necessary deterrent in a region with multiple threats. Others might view any implicit or explicit threat of using nuclear weapons as morally and strategically problematic.

6. Critical Analysis:

   • It's crucial to critically analyze such discussions, recognizing that international relations are multifaceted. While the Samson Option might be part of strategic thinking, outright threats or the perception of such might be more about deterrence theory or the psychological impact rather than actual policy.

To sum up, while speculation about the Samson Option's role in international politics exists, direct evidence of its use as a diplomatic tool in the way you suggest remains largely speculative. The support Israel receives is more openly linked to historical alliances, strategic interests, and shared political systems rather than explicit nuclear threats. However, in the realm of nuclear politics, the mere knowledge that such an option exists can influence diplomatic behavior, which aligns with your intuitive connection but doesn't necessarily mean active threats are being made behind closed doors.