Dome of the Rock blown up April 1982

I didn't say that, I said it likely stops peace with Egypt, means Israel is left holding Sinai land, big change, it stops the war in Lebanon (at lest for a time) big change, early Intifada, likely looking more like OTL's second one big change, what I did so was no state on state war, thats not any where close to the same as "nothing happening"

Wait, so you're arguing that when Israelis flip the finger to any indication of adhering to an actual peace or even showing basic respect for their neighbors, that any changes that occur always favor Israel here? Either way what you're arguing doesn't exactly seem to follow. So Israelis blow up the Dome of the Rock and this happens in a vacuum? Israel has no global effects from this? The Saudis and their ilk don't even try to manipulate oil shock against it?
 
By that logic Israel's entire actions in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been illegal since the First Intifada. Either a larger-scale Intifada (and the violence now) is a war or it isn't one.

I think you got mixed up. Black Angel was refering to state-on-state war, not a Palestinian uprising.
 
Wait, so you're arguing that when Israelis flip the finger to any indication of adhering to an actual peace or even showing basic respect for their neighbors, that any changes that occur always favor Israel here? Either way what you're arguing doesn't exactly seem to follow. So Israelis blow up the Dome of the Rock and this happens in a vacuum? Israel has no global effects from this? The Saudis and their ilk don't even try to manipulate oil shock against it?

9/11 most of the high jackers? Saudis, we didn't go to war with them, why? because what a state does and what some citizens of that state do are two very different things.

I'm unsure what you mean by the first, what I was saying is politically right after a terrorist attack the Egyptians can't have an Israeli Embassy in Cairo, its a non-starter, and for Israel it was basically the whole point "land for peace" no Peace no land, end of story, maybe the Egyptians could quickly restart the deal but I don't see an April hand over
 
I think you got mixed up. Black Angel was refering to state-on-state war, not a Palestinian uprising.

I think the two of you are misunderstanding equally. I'm referring to the a-nationalistic Islamists of the Al-Qaeda variety, not Arab states. Those guys already did exist in the 80s, and if the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't enough to make them exist, this would be.

9/11 most of the high jackers? Saudis, we didn't go to war with them, why? because what a state does and what some citizens of that state do are two very different things.

I'm unsure what you mean by the first, what I was saying is politically right after a terrorist attack the Egyptians can't have an Israeli Embassy in Cairo, its a non-starter, and for Israel it was basically the whole point "land for peace" no Peace no land, end of story, maybe the Egyptians could quickly restart the deal but I don't see an April hand over

To be perfectly crude, if Israel can't police its citizens to prevent an assault on the fucking Dome of the Rock, why is any Arab state ever going to bother with this again? They've already seen Israel's ability to adhere to agreements is worth as much as anything Yasser Arafat says in this scenario. This is an absolutely sensitive, vital time in Israeli foreign policy. If the Israeli government can't stop its own terrorists now, when *would* it be able to stop them?
 
There very well could be a repeat of the 1973 OAPEC Oil Boycott.

How long and how hard the Islamic world would respond to the bombing depends in part on how Israel is perceived in light of its (hopefully) judicious and efficient disposal of the Bombers and offering financial and material recompense. But it will respond.

The casus belli for Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was the attempted assassination of israel's ambassador to the UK by a Palestinian terrorist group. In the POD of this topic, I'd expect that there would be a lot more such attempted high profile actions by the same parties. So, deferring the Invasion is not necessarily a given.

Clint, I agree. An intifada would be highly likely.
 
There very well could be a repeat of the 1973 OAPEC Oil Boycott.

How long and how hard the Islamic world would respond to the bombing depends in part on how Israel is perceived in light of its (hopefully) judicious and efficient disposal of the Bombers and offering financial and material recompense. But it will respond.

The casus belli for Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was the attempted assassination of israel's ambassador to the UK by a Palestinian terrorist group. In the POD of this topic, I'd expect that there would be a lot more such attempted high profile actions by the same parties. So, deferring the Invasion is not necessarily a given.

Clint, I agree. An intifada would be highly likely.

It's important to realize a vital, basic concept that seems to be eluding people here: THIS IS THE DOME OF THE ROCK. The issue affects far more than ARAB ISLAMISTS. You're talking the global equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull. The Islamic World offended by this is far larger than the Arab states alone.
 
Am I correct in guessing this would be the equivalent of someone blowing up the Vatican in regards to its impact on Islam as a religion?
 
It's important to realize a vital, basic concept that seems to be eluding people here: THIS IS THE DOME OF THE ROCK. The issue affects far more than ARAB ISLAMISTS. You're talking the global equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull. The Islamic World offended by this is far larger than the Arab states alone.

I just don't see it, and you're not really give us anything to point to it, I'm a little shaky on the Islamic hive mind idea, because you seem to be saying "all Muslims will react this way, casting aside logic to attack!" and the Governments don't want it, terrorist groups, sure, but not governments.
 
I just don't see it, and you're not really give us anything to point to it, I'm a little shaky on the Islamic hive mind idea, because you seem to be saying "all Muslims will react this way, casting aside logic to attack!" and the Governments don't want it, terrorist groups, sure, but not governments.

Okay, let me ask you this.

If someone planted bombs in the Vatican, and killed the Pope during the explosion, what would happen? Say that terrorist was tied to a specific country?
 
Snake, I said the Islamic world, not the Arab Islamic world.
The fact that the Dome of the Rock is still standing says something, no?. Shin Bet did crush the Jewish Underground faction of the Gush Emunim movement that planned this and actual executed terror attacks.
 
Am I correct in guessing this would be the equivalent of someone blowing up the Vatican in regards to its impact on Islam as a religion?

Essentially, yes.

Snake, I said the Islamic world, not the Arab Islamic world.
The fact that the Dome of the Rock is still standing says something, no?. Shin Bet did crush the Jewish Underground faction of the Gush Emunim movement that planned this and actual executed terror attacks.

Sure, but in this scenario Israel totally fails to stop anyone blowing it up in the middle of highly sensitive peace negotiations. After this Israel is as creditable as Arafat in the eyes of Arab state governments.
 
Okay, let me ask you this.

If someone planted bombs in the Vatican, and killed the Pope during the explosion, what would happen? Say that terrorist was tied to a specific country?

again I'd point to 9/11, planed by a Saudi, carried out mostly by Saudis, no war with Saudi Arabia, just because a citizen doesn't act for a whole state, what we're talking about is a handful of terrorists, a small group, so the West wouldn't go for it, the Muslim/arab street would spin tails about Mossad being behind it, but Arab/Muslim states wouldn't take action.
 
I think the two of you are misunderstanding equally. I'm referring to the a-nationalistic Islamists of the Al-Qaeda variety, not Arab states. Those guys already did exist in the 80s, and if the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't enough to make them exist, this would be.

Black Angel: "I feel like the age of state on state war Arabs Vs Israel had past"

Snake: "If the age had passed by this point, this is just the kind of thing to start it up again"

I think you need to rephrase that, because I realy don't get what you are trying to say. Do you think that Egypt and Jordan will cancel agreements with Israel and together with Syria, launch an attack on Israel, or that Israel would be faced with alot more terrorism?

To be perfectly crude, if Israel can't police its citizens to prevent an assault on the fucking Dome of the Rock, why is any Arab state ever going to bother with this again? They've already seen Israel's ability to adhere to agreements is worth as much as anything Yasser Arafat says in this scenario. This is an absolutely sensitive, vital time in Israeli foreign policy. If the Israeli government can't stop its own terrorists now, when *would* it be able to stop them?

That does not make any sense. Nearly every Arab nation has terrorism problems at this time IIRC. Also, Israel had ignored enough terror attacks carried by Arabs when it was needed for political easons. You are using the same argument Israeli right wingers use.
 
again I'd point to 9/11, planed by a Saudi, carried out mostly by Saudis, no war with Saudi Arabia, just because a citizen doesn't act for a whole state, what we're talking about is a handful of terrorists, a small group, so the West wouldn't go for it, the Muslim/arab street would spin tails about Mossad being behind it, but Arab/Muslim states wouldn't take action.

There is a HUGE difference between 9/11 and this, to be frank.
The target of the former is not an important building to the religion of hundreds of millions of people globally. The latter is.

I'm not saying the Twin Towers weren't important, but saying they're the equivalent of the Dome of the Rock in importance is like saying that the Empire State Building has as much impact globally as the Vatican.
 
Sure, but in this scenario Israel totally fails to stop anyone blowing it up in the middle of highly sensitive peace negotiations. After this Israel is as creditable as Arafat in the eyes of Arab state governments.

that might be, that said, the US would, rightfully, not see it that way, Egypt and Jordan are in the US's pocket, if the thought of War crossed any one's minds there a nice call from Reagan (or his team) will kill those thoughts right quick.
 
Black Angel: "I feel like the age of state on state war Arabs Vs Israel had past"

Snake: "If the age had passed by this point, this is just the kind of thing to start it up again"

I think you need to rephrase that, because I realy don't get what you are trying to say. Do you think that Egypt and Jordan will cancel agreements with Israel and together with Syria, launch an attack on Israel, or that Israel would be faced with alot more terrorism?

I'm saying that the peace treaty is DOA and Israel will be faced with a renewal of the permanent state of war surrounded by perpetually hostile enemies.

That does not make any sense. Nearly every Arab nation has terrorism problems at this time IIRC. Also, Israel had ignored enough terror attacks carried by Arabs when it was needed for political easons. You are using the same argument Israeli right wingers use.

Sigh, I'm going to ask a very blunt question: you do realize that political Islamism of the terrorist variety, which is already fighting the Soviet Union at this time has fuck all to do with the Arab states and their desires or lack thereof at this time? Imagine how Ayatollah Khomeini reacts to this.....people really need to stop treating the Arabs as though they're all of Islam here. Blowing up the Dome of the Rock when Iran's armies are on an upswing in the Iran-Iraq War is going to be very, very bad regionally.
 
that might be, that said, the US would, rightfully, not see it that way, Egypt and Jordan are in the US's pocket, if the thought of War crossed any one's minds there a nice call from Reagan (or his team) will kill those thoughts right quick.

Okay, let me ask you this.

If terrorists from the United Kingdom blew up the Vatican, and these terrorists had some theoretical connection to the UK's government, would the US stand by it?
 
There is a HUGE difference between 9/11 and this, to be frank.
The target of the former is not an important building to the religion of hundreds of millions of people globally. The latter is.

I'm not saying the Twin Towers weren't important, but saying they're the equivalent of the Dome of the Rock in importance is like saying that the Empire State Building has as much impact globally as the Vatican.

my point stands, it wouldn't be a state action, Israel might take heat for failing to protect the Dome well enough, but thats not enough for war or any real attacks.
 
that might be, that said, the US would, rightfully, not see it that way, Egypt and Jordan are in the US's pocket, if the thought of War crossed any one's minds there a nice call from Reagan (or his team) will kill those thoughts right quick.

Which has zero relevance at this time. Alliance with the USA has obviously not changed Israel's attitudes to Arabs, Iran's in the process of beating the shit out of Iraq, and may actually propose a peace with Iraq so Khomeini can begin using his new ideology against Israel. Globally the USA's credibility with the Muslim world if it allows Israel to dynamite Holy sites of Islam has died on arrival, which is going to be very, very bad. Let's be even more explicit here: Islamists of the 1980s in the wake of this aren't going to give a flying fuck what the US and Soviet puppet dictatorships in the region think. I'm going to ask another, also blunt question: do you comprehend the difference between secular dictatorships and the emerging Islamist movement and how this is not going to see identical reactions on the part of both? This is basic geopolitics here, something Israel will not be immune to. Sure, it's only some Israelis, but if they're blowing up the third holiest site in Islam in response to a proposed deal involving land exchange, such details are flatly put totally and utterly irrelevant.
 
Okay, let me ask you this.

If terrorists from the United Kingdom blew up the Vatican, and these terrorists had some theoretical connection to the UK's government, would the US stand by it?

"some theoretical connection" :confused: ok so say it was Ulster Unionists, my guess no one would link the UK Government at all to it, and MI5 would drop on them like a ton of bricks, and that'd be enough for people, this being Israel and their being a odd different standard maybe this would be different, but I can't see, "sub group of lobbying organization that has links to governing party" being turned in a sane world as "Israel"
 
Top