Greater Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greater here having the meaning of larger (much, much larger), how can we get an Israel that resembles this, even roughly, with a POD after 1900?
greater-israel-map5.jpg

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=91561&stc=1&d=1263762640
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
Like a red X? That's be hard. ;)

Can you reload the picture? It's not up right now. I have trouble with that a lot, too. Try previewing it first to make sure it's actually sticking to the post.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Working now?

Yep.


(looks at map) Holy mother of FUCK...where did you find that?

I could logically explain an Israel that includes the Golan Heights, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and the Sinai. That would be an ATL where through various political and military factors they don't give back what they take in '67, '73, or '82.
The rest, though, I'm not so sure about.
 
Of course everyone knows that would be Begin's dream, which goes beyond a wank into the realm of the P-A Cabal's territorial delusions. Unless somehow the Arabist (in the non-pejorative sense) FCO has a unanimous (and ASB) change of heart, I don't see that happening.
 

maverick

Banned
I think that for this to work Israel would need nukes and big, smoking craters were Moscow and Washington once were...
 

Germaniac

Donor
Your joking right... God Damn if you think arab states dislike Israel now...

For those who can't see the map, Israel owns everything up to the Euphrates river. Absorbing most of Syria, Jordan, considerable about of Iraq, and Lebanon.
 
I think that for this to work Israel would need nukes and big, smoking craters were Moscow and Washington once were...

Hmm - you mean a WWIII in which the US and the USSR take eachother out but the Middle East remains relatively intact?

Bruce
 
Yep.


(looks at map) Holy mother of FUCK...where did you find that?

I could logically explain an Israel that includes the Golan Heights, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and the Sinai. That would be an ATL where through various political and military factors they don't give back what they take in '67, '73, or '82.
The rest, though, I'm not so sure about.
Well I did say roughly... :p

Seriously, the one thing that really drew me to the map was that I like the Hebrew script. Anyways, how about we make this "How big can you possibly make Israel and what are the consequences" thread?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Anyways, how about we make this "How big can you possibly make Israel and what are the consequences" thread?

Okay! I can roll with that.

Well, to have an Israel that encompasses the Golan, the southern chunk of Lebanon, the West Bank/Gaza, and the Sinai...well...let me take them a bit at a time:

1. An Israeli Sinai: my preferred theory is that the operation to take out the Egyptian SAMs on the second day of the Yom Kippur War is allowed to go through. This would put the SAM net out of commission by noon and have Israeli armoured divisions on the canal by the end of the day at best or day 4 at worst.
Then you just have a government in Egypt which doesn't want to play diplomatic ball with Israel, which is extremely likely.

2. West Bank/Gaza: This could come out of an Israeli Sinai, as Sadat's diplomatic trip to Israel was what openned the door to the Camp David Accords which in turn helped turn over control of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians.

3. Golan Heights: that's logical. Israel's had control of that off and on forever.

4. southern chunk of Lebanon: The original plan for Operation Galilee, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, was for the occupation of a 40 kilometer zone where they would destroy the PLO and make sure they couldn't come back. It wouldn't be hard for the Israeli government to say they were just coming in to stay.
Well...it'd be a harder sell than the first three on this list, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
 

Commissar

Banned
Hmm - you mean a WWIII in which the US and the USSR take eachother out but the Middle East remains relatively intact?

Bruce

Even so by then Syria had VX and thus MAD with Israel. In terms of effectiveness, I'm more scared of VX than nukes.
 
Pretty much.

Well, even in a "US and USSR take eachother out" and "Arabs then go all suicidally psycho" scenario I really can't see Israel taking all that many Arabs on board: they have enough problems with the ones they have already. Nor can I see the Israelis going for deliberate, on-the-ground genocide (the Israelis only have that many nukes), although there's a neat hat trick you can do with a nuke and the Aswan dam.

Now, I can see Israel seizing the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields in a post-WWIII setting (they need the oil), which would involve a large chunk of N. Arabia, but Lebanon? Syria?

Hey, I had a mostly ASB map a ways back (Based on M. John Harrison's "The Centauri Device") in which, post WWIII, the Israelis colonize the radioactive (and mostly depopulated) ruins of Europe.

Hm. Somewhere well out on the positive tail of the gaussian distribution of timelines, there is a Switzerland-like federation of Jewish, Christian, Shia and Sunni "Cantons" occupying OTL Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine...may require "no holocaust", among other things.

Bruce
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'm assuming 1984-86. By the late 70s the Syrians had enough VX to depopulate Israel if pressed.

I'd like to see some sources on that. And not just internet stuff, either. I'd like to know the names of some books I could see. I'm looking though Jane's Intelligence Review right now, and all I can find is a weak possibility that they may have had sarin. And this is a theory put forward by people who were at Hama when it was attacked in 1982.

I've read dozens of books on the military side of the Arab-Israeli conflict and I've got to admit that I've never heard anything about a Syrian chemical program that had VX. Maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but I've never seen anything in a book about it.

Yom Kippur War by Dunstan doesn't mention any chemical weapons, nor does The History of the Middle-East Wars by Westwood. And that one has a pretty good look at the Arab side.
 
Well, even in a "US and USSR take eachother out" and "Arabs then go all suicidally psycho" scenario I really can't see Israel taking all that many Arabs on board: they have enough problems with the ones they have already. Nor can I see the Israelis going for deliberate, on-the-ground genocide (the Israelis only have that many nukes), although there's a neat hat trick you can do with a nuke and the Aswan dam.
My guess is they wouldn't take them on board - they'd throw them overboard.

In a war where civilized constraint has gone by the board (which you'd pretty much need to get this kind of map), 'encouraging' the former inhabitants of your new lands to find another home seems... probable. Hopefully, that means shoving them across the border, not extermination camps or the like...

But, ja, it would require WWIII to go really badly first.
 
I'd like to see some sources on that. And not just internet stuff, either. I'd like to know the names of some books I could see. I'm looking though Jane's Intelligence Review right now, and all I can find is a weak possibility that they may have had sarin. And this is a theory put forward by people who were at Hama when it was attacked in 1982.

.

Perhaps he's thinking of all those chemical weapons Al-Qaeda smuggled into Syria before the US invasion of Iraq? :D

Bruce
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top