Israel civ

[mazzz]

well ive seen TONS of world as it is today ones for some other games, that had Russia,US,China,Germany(or an other Eurpean country)An African country like Algeria, and Brazil, and if theres room an Islamic Nation. (Middleeast, North Africa, Indonesia/Malasyia The Stan nations, and Bosnia) And I reject your 100% off CIV player agree with you

[Agathon]

What do you mean, "every civ player knows that one must have an Israeli civ in both a regional and a world scenario".

I don't, and I'm a civ player since the first boardgame.

While some argument can be made for including a Hebrew or Israeli civ in a regional scenario, it is absurd to include one in a world scenario unless you include every single wandering tribe of antiquity, which isn't the point of the game. The point of the game is to compete among the world's great civilisations and so far no one in this thread has managed to come up with a credible argument for counting the Hebrews/Jews/Israelis as a great civilisation. The reason this is the case is that they were never ever one - there was no great era of Hebrew hegemony or colonisation - despite the unsubstantiated claims of religious fundamentalists.

The debate roughly stands or falls over this point.

If you think that the Hebrews should be in because the Arabs are, you are being ridiculous. The Arabs conquered their way into Europe on two fronts and were the centre of world culture and civilisation for nearly a thousand years - that's why they are in.

If we are going to put every country in we might as well put New Zealand in - in which case the game would become absurd.

As for Israel being a world power - give me a break. Israel is all but a vassal of the United States. Without US backing the Israeli state would become a total international pariah and would cease to exist in quite a short time. But then again - so would many other client states.

[Eli]

despite the unsubstantiated claims of religious fundamentalists.

What claims and made by who?

[mazzz]

SHEIK: Kingof the Apes is right. Why should the Palestinians be added? They are terrorists who should never have a country and hopefully never will.

why? MILLIONS of PALESTINIAN live under crufew, 1000's have been KILLED.
you called EVERY SINGLE PALESTINIAN a TERRORIST?
EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD. CHILDERN WITH HEATH PROBLEMSPROMBLEMS, CHILDREN WHO GREW UP IN REUGEE CAMPS? WHO's HOUSES WERE DESTORYED TO MAKE ROOM FOR SETTLEMENTS? A DEATH OF A PALESTINIAN IS JUST AS BAD AS AN ISRAELI, ARE WE STILL IN A WORLD OF RACISM? SUGGEST YOU READ SOME HISTORY, AND NOT JUST THINK WHAT CNN-MSNBC-FOXNEWS TELLS YOU. YOUR INTELIED TO YOUR OWN THOUGHTS BUT COME ON? EVERY SINGLE ONE A TERRORIST?
The state of Israel can only live in peace, if there is a state of Palestine. do you expect Millions of people to just go away? and the BILLIONS of people who are pro-state?

[mazzz]

Claims: polienco

"I wan't Israel civ!!!
This oldest nation that survived
in this wild world"


thats one

[Agathon]

Just those who make claims based on Biblical sources that there was some kind of Hebrew hegemony during the time of Solomon and/or David. What other evidence is there that these people existed in the way described in that work.

Many ancient cultures considered themselves to have enjoyed a "golden age" of dominance in the past (witness the Homeric epics), but such claims are generally dubious and certainly don't count as evidence for inclusion in the game. Ancient texts, even those that have some claim to be historical are often written for political or polemical purposes - I know this - I read them (some in the original language). In other words, they are often a pack of lies. What we need to substantiate such claims is solid archaeological evidence, which is precisely what is lacking to back up some of the more outlandish Biblical claims.

Again - the Bible is not a history book, if you mean by that term something like "a precise record and ordering of past events". This is not the fault of its compilers, for whom the idea of "history" as we understand it did not exist. But let's not just blame them - there are plenty of others.

To take a more extreme example: what if the Australian Aborigines wanted to make claims based on their notion of the Dreaming (a mythical age when many important things happened)? Would we count this alone as evidence for the reality of those events?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Agathon
Many ancient cultures considered themselves to have enjoyed a "golden age" of dominance in the past (witness the Homeric epics), but such claims are generally dubious and certainly don't count as evidence for inclusion in the game. Ancient texts, even those that have some claim to be historical are often written for political or polemical purposes - I know this - I read them (some in the original language). In other words, they are often a pack of lies.

Well, that is a bit harsh.

The fact is that the notion of historical accuracy simply didn't exist until Rome. People wrote to express ideas; it was generally understood that not everything that was written was necessarily true. That misconception (everything written down must be true) didn't enter the human mind until the last century.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Agathon

Again - the Bible is not a history book, if you mean by that term something like "a precise record and ordering of past events". This is not the fault of its compilers, for whom the idea of "history" as we understand it did not exist. But let's not just blame them - there are plenty of others.

To take a more extreme example: what if the Australian Aborigines wanted to make claims based on their notion of the Dreaming (a mythical age when many important things happened)? Would we count this alone as evidence for the reality of those events?

Ribannah - I can't see how I can be accused of not making a claim that I clearly made (see quote)?

I have to disagree on the other score. As far as I know Herodotus is the first person to write recognisable "history" (checking his sources and so one) although he is far from perfect. Thucydides is an even better example - surely one of the finest historians that ever lived.

[Panag]

hi ,

, it would be better if some people actually read the bible before they talk about it

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Whatever you think of Israel and Palestine, it is hard to argue that Israel / Judaism has not had a disproportionate effect on mankind over the course of 1,000s of years. Plenty of Christian and 2 Islamic Civs are included in CivIII, and these religions are based on Judaism and worship of Yahweh Sabaoth after all. And think of the sheer number of fascinating wars that have been fought over such a tiny, dry area...

Besides, the modern Israel state makes for GREAT civ playing! I'm not a big MONGOL fan, but it's great to have them in the game, because of their NEGATIVE historical signifigance. Similarly, the highly militarized, deeply religious modern State of Israel would make for a great new Civ. Many modern military experts agree that the Israel Defense Force is the most efficient military in the world, and the exploits of the Mossad are notable in the chronicles of modern intelligence...

I would love to play as the Israelis, even though in real life I view them as just another group of butchers (NOT ALL JEWS, mind you, just the Israel military-settlement complex). After all, we can play as the Iroquois and the Zulu, and have they lasted? What effect have they made?

The Israelis have simply been avoided because of contentiousness, but they absolutely should be in the game... perhaps their special unit could be the armored bulldozer...

[congobeast]

Originally posted by SIV
Yes, I'd love to play Israel civ.
It HAS been a dominant force in the middle-east (so we're a bit small at the moment).

>>cough<<
>>Ottoman Empire<<
>>cough<<

[congobeast]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
Cidifer, in response to your observation on all the existing civs in Civ3 being a great power at some point, I never heard of the Aztecs, Iroquois, Zulus or Koreans dominating the world landscape.

I think that perhaps "regional hegemony" is better way of expressing the thought.

No, the Aztecs, Iroquois or Zulus never did build a world-dominating empire. They did, however, dominate vast swaths of entire continents.

The Koreans... well... that's my best choice for the "What the hell did you make THESE guys a Civ for?!?" thread.

[congobeast]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Many modern military experts agree that the Israel Defense Force is the most efficient military in the world, and the exploits of the Mossad are notable in the chronicles of modern intelligence...

No argument against the effectiveness of Mossad; but one could easily argue that the success of the Israeli military have also been rather inflated by the gross imcompetance of their foes since the foundation of the Israeli state.

While the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the like have historically been quite large, they have been paper tigers. Poorly led, equipped and trained conscripts are never much of a match against a smaller, professional military force. Witness the Chinese involvement in the Korean War; or the Soviet infantry wave tactics against the Germans in WWII. When effective, it is only by a complete and utter preponderance of numbers; while the not-quite-enough of the Korean War shows the other side of the coin. I think this principle was well in play during Israel's wars against her neighbors- while they outnumbered the IDF, they just didn't outnumber it -enough-...

... perhaps their special unit could be the armored bulldozer...

Heh. That's quite an image... who wants to design the flics, though?

[mazzz]

bulldozer, takes a city, kills much of polulation, move rest to the nearst civ

[Agathon]

Whatever you think of Israel and Palestine, it is hard to argue that Israel / Judaism has not had a disproportionate effect on mankind over the course of 1,000s of years. Plenty of Christian and 2 Islamic Civs are included in CivIII, and these religions are based on Judaism and worship of Yahweh Sabaoth after all. And think of the sheer number of fascinating wars that have been fought over such a tiny, dry area...

Why don't you read my other posts on this thread - this question has been addressed already. One could make the same claim about the Scots but they aren't in - and neither should they be. Neither fits the criteria the game designers seem to be using and while you can argue about the criteria, it is simply special pleading to want a Hebrew civ without some argument in this direction.

Again - there was never a Hebrew empire, so they aren't in the game. The various christian/islamic civs are not in qua christian or islamic, but because they were great empires. Please stop trying to change history to suit your political or racial prejudices.

And as for the Bible - I'd rather die than have to read it again.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Agathon


Why don't you read my other posts on this thread - this question has been addressed already. One could make the same claim about the Scots but they aren't in - and neither should they be. Neither fits the criteria the game designers seem to be using and while you can argue about the criteria, it is simply special pleading to want a Hebrew civ without some argument in this direction.

Again - there was never a Hebrew empire, so they aren't in the game. The various christian/islamic civs are not in qua christian or islamic, but because they were great empires. Please stop trying to change history to suit your political or racial prejudices.

And as for the Bible - I'd rather die than have to read it again.

The claim I made - that the Israelis have had a disproportionate effect on history - could not be made about the Scots. Scotland is not acknowledged by billions of people of conflicting faiths to be "the holy land".

I never claimed that Israeli has ever been a mighty empire. Still, many of the nations listed in Civ have never been mighty empires: the Scandanavians were never centralized, similarly the Celts, the Babylonians and Iroquois didn't last too long and controlled relatively tiny areas compared to, say, China, Russia, America, Britain, France, etc. What about the Zulus? An even less impressive "empire" than Israel.

As for my biases, I am an atheist; I dislike Israel because I have a deep disdain of most religions, and this state, often referred as a "democracy," has religious and racial bias at it's very core. However, I enjoy playing as the Germans mostly because of their negative moral history as invaders and conquerers, and hence, I would enjoy playing as Israel, a fanatic country with a unique religion and (currently) the world's most efficient military force.

Historically, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were at times as large as the Babylonian "empire," which was just a collection of city states.

And finally, I think the Scots would make a good addition, as good as any of the Civs that have been added just as "foils" to the large empires (Carthage to Rome, Iroquois to America, Celts to Britain, etc.)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


The claim I made - that the Israelis have had a disproportionate effect on history - could not be made about the Scots. Scotland is not acknowledged by billions of people of conflicting faiths to be "the holy land".

I never claimed that Israeli has ever been a mighty empire. Still, many of the nations listed in Civ have never been mighty empires: the Scandanavians were never centralized, similarly the Celts, the Babylonians and Iroquois didn't last too long and controlled relatively tiny areas compared to, say, China, Russia, America, Britain, France, etc. What about the Zulus? An even less impressive "empire" than Israel.

As for my biases, I am an atheist; I dislike Israel because I have a deep disdain of most religions, and this state, often referred as a "democracy," has religious and racial bias at it's very core. However, I enjoy playing as the Germans mostly because of their negative moral history as invaders and conquerers, and hence, I would enjoy playing as Israel, a fanatic country with a unique religion and (currently) the world's most efficient military force.

Historically, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were at times as large as the Babylonian "empire," which was just a collection of city states.

And finally, I think the Scots would make a good addition, as good as any of the Civs that have been added just as "foils" to the large empires (Carthage to Rome, Iroquois to America, Celts to Britain, etc.)

I'd make the claim about the Scots. Here you have a people replete with genius - Adam Smith, David Hume, Sir Walter Scott, John Dunlop. The Jews are much the same - they have thrown up more than their fair share of influential individuals.

I do not believe that there was ever a great Jewish kingdom - I'd need to see hard archaeological evidence that there was. There are problems with these claims as it seems the archaeologists can't find a kingdom of suitable magnificence and this to me confirms that the notion of a great Jewish kingdom is a wistful lie. I'll try to find an article I read recently which does a good job of summing up the current evidence. One good piece of evidence is that the other civs of the time don't seem to notice them all that much. "Where is the evidence?" he cried.

As for the Vikings and Celts - these two peoples ended up everywhere. Russia, The British Isles, Scandinavia, Iceland, even America for a short time. They inaugurated realms in these places - the Jews of the diaspora almost always did not.

As for the Babylonians - they were clearly the most powerful state of their time - ask the Jews, whom they reputedly conquered.

The Zulus and the Iroquois are in to give indigenous North America and Southern Africa some representation. Having said that these two did exercise some sole hegemony over their respective areas. They are, I suppose in part, "what might have beens". I would like to see the Zulus replaced with the Zimbabwe civilisation and the Iroquois gone.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I see where you're coming from with the Scots issue, so no-Scots, no-Jews... I see the logic. Still, Israel is (almost) constantly at the core of the modern world's conflicts, and the area now known as Israel does comprise the "Holy Land" over which wars have been fought since time immemorial. Sure, there was never a "great Jewish empire," but there have always been highly devoted, one might say fanatic, Jewish partisans that have fought over this land.

And the uniqueness of Judaism alone justifies Israel's inclusion into a future Civ game, as does a potential role as a "foil" to the Arabs.

And think of the passion that Israel evokes even amongst Americans... is not drama what makes Civ so great?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ribannah - I can't see how I can be accused of not making a claim that I clearly made (see quote)?

Sorry.

I have to disagree on the other score. As far as I know Herodotus is the first person to write recognisable "history" (checking his sources and so one) although he is far from perfect. Thucydides is an even better example - surely one of the finest historians that ever lived.

There are even older examples of factual historical accounts by Chinese authors. But they were exceptions to the rule. Did their readers know the difference?

[SeferKoheleth]

Originally posted by mazzz
First off, im not anti-Jewish, i am freinds with many Rabbis...

Next you have to admit, if Israel ever nuked ANY ONE, it would not last long there would be a world out cry...

And anti-Semetic was not always used as Jewish, it was coined in Germany a long time ago.

Eli said...

"Dictionary definitions are worth nothing.

Anti-Semitism, with no relation to how semitism is defined, was always used in the context of Jews."

Well if dictionary definitions are worth nothing, im sure that Eli's definitions are more credible then them...

Correct, the term "anti-semitism" was coined in Germany... in the context of the Aryan "scientific" justification for Jew hatred. In the late-19th Century, hating Jews for their religion was considered inappropriate, so Aryan "science" coined the concept of the Jews as a race-- one who is "anti-semetic" said that they didn't mind the Jewish religion, but the Jewish genetics.

Anti-semitism has never been used to denote hatred of Arabs. I agree with you that the term "anti-semitism" is a poor word choice, but that doesn't disguise the fact that traditionally anti-semites were haters of Jews, not Arabs.

[SeferKoheleth]

Originally posted by Agathon


I'd make the claim about the Scots. Here you have a people replete with genius - Adam Smith, David Hume, Sir Walter Scott, John Dunlop. The Jews are much the same - they have thrown up more than their fair share of influential individuals.

I do not believe that there was ever a great Jewish kingdom - I'd need to see hard archaeological evidence that there was. There are problems with these claims as it seems the archaeologists can't find a kingdom of suitable magnificence and this to me confirms that the notion of a great Jewish kingdom is a wistful lie. I'll try to find an article I read recently which does a good job of summing up the current evidence. One good piece of evidence is that the other civs of the time don't seem to notice them all that much. "Where is the evidence?" he cried.

As for the Vikings and Celts - these two peoples ended up everywhere. Russia, The British Isles, Scandinavia, Iceland, even America for a short time. They inaugurated realms in these places - the Jews of the diaspora almost always did not.

As for the Babylonians - they were clearly the most powerful state of their time - ask the Jews, whom they reputedly conquered.

The Zulus and the Iroquois are in to give indigenous North America and Southern Africa some representation. Having said that these two did exercise some sole hegemony over their respective areas. They are, I suppose in part, "what might have beens". I would like to see the Zulus replaced with the Zimbabwe civilisation and the Iroquois gone.

You'd make that claim rather poorly with the Scots. The magnitude of Scottish influence on the world is trifling compared to the Jewish influence-- it is Jewish concepts of morality and right/wrong that have been adopted by 3/5 of the world's population.

I also don't doubt that the Scots had a fair number of great thinkers... but a paltry few compared to the Jews. The Jews are .01% of the world's population, but 10% of it's Nobel Prize winners.

Hell, if you could make a list of the 3 most influential thinkers of the past 150 years, it wouldn't suprise me you started with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein. I'd probably put Milton Friedman, Fredreich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Jonas Salk and about 100 others shortly behind.

[SeferKoheleth]

There is weak archeological evidence of the kingdoms of David and Soloman (a couple of monuments inscribed "House of David" etc.).

There is substantial archeological evidence of the later kings of both the Northern and Southern kingdoms... from Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian records (Egyptian records dating to the 11th century b.c.e about pillaging Israel, Assyrian records in the 8th century recording the captivity of the so-called 10 Lost Tribes, Babylonian records of the conquest in 586 b.c.e.)

So, at a minimum, we can place the dominion of the Hebrew Kingdom as about 500-600 years. Quite a substantial accomplishment.

Persian records document the return of Jews following the end of the Babylonian captivity in 516.

From 516 until the Greek conquest, Judea was a province of the Persian Empire with substantial regional autonomy-- de facto independent at times.

In 164, the Maccabean Rebellion overthrew the Greeks and restored independance for nearly a century.

While never "great" in terms of world power, Jewish dominion over Israel was quite longlasting-- far longer than that of the Arabs, Ottomans, Crusaders and British.

Although only a footnote on world history, there were also independent Jewish kingdoms outside of Israel in Ethiopia, Yemen, Arabia, and Khazaria.

[Panag]

Originally posted by SeferKoheleth
There is weak archeological evidence of the kingdoms of David and Soloman (a couple of monuments inscribed "House of David" etc.).

There is substantial archeological evidence of the later kings of both the Northern and Southern kingdoms... from Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian records (Egyptian records dating to the 11th century b.c.e about pillaging Israel, Assyrian records in the 8th century recording the captivity of the so-called 10 Lost Tribes, Babylonian records of the conquest in 586 b.c.e.)

So, at a minimum, we can place the dominion of the Hebrew Kingdom as about 500-600 years. Quite a substantial accomplishment.

Persian records document the return of Jews following the end of the Babylonian captivity in 516.

From 516 until the Greek conquest, Judea was a province of the Persian Empire with substantial regional autonomy-- de facto independent at times.

In 164, the Maccabean Rebellion overthrew the Greeks and restored independance for nearly a century.

While never "great" in terms of world power, Jewish dominion over Israel was quite longlasting-- far longer than that of the Arabs, Ottomans, Crusaders and British.

Although only a footnote on world history, there were also independent Jewish kingdoms outside of Israel in Ethiopia, Yemen, Arabia, and Khazaria.

hi ,

lets not forget all the things we have given to the world , believing in one G-D , medicine , alef-bet , customs , maps , trade , skill's , etc , .....

we should have them in the game !

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I must say I agree with the posts above... the Jews have excericised considerable influence on the world's cultural history.

Furthermore, there is no country more contentious or in contention today. What other tiny nuclear power makes, and recieves, as many inflammatory gestures and actions?

Additionally, think of the incredible units and improvements "Israel" would bring to Civ! The Army Bulldozer would be an excellent UU, for example, as would the Armed Settler... perhaps a Settler that builds a city with one free defensive unit upon construction?


In fact, given the efficiency of the Mossad, it would be tempting invent a whole new trait just for Israel, something dealing with covert activities, IMO.

Then again, the Scots would also be rad.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
I must say I agree with the posts above... the Jews have excericised considerable influence on the world's cultural history.

Furthermore, there is no country more contentious or in contention today. What other tiny nuclear power makes, and recieves, as many inflammatory gestures and actions?

Additionally, think of the incredible units and improvements "Israel" would bring to Civ! The Army Bulldozer would be an excellent UU, for example, as would the Armed Settler... perhaps a Settler that builds a city with one free defensive unit upon construction?


In fact, given the efficiency of the Mossad, it would be tempting invent a whole new trait just for Israel, something dealing with covert activities, IMO.

Then again, the Scots would also be rad.

hi ,

, keep talking , keep talking , .....

its so sad there are not so many options when it comes to scenario building in civ III , unlike civ II where the above allready excist in several scenario's , ......

have a nice day

[mazzz]

well sure "anti-Semetic" has never been used agaist arabs buy "Semetic" is,(well not in the west as much). think about it WHAT DOES ANTI MEAN

[mazzz]

SeferKoheleth:



"While never "great" in terms of world power, Jewish dominion over Israel was quite longlasting-- far longer than that of the Arabs, Ottomans, Crusaders and British."

so what? just because they had the "holy land" longer does not mean there should be a civ...
any way most people calling the selves "hebrew" are really centrail asain Khazars who migrated to europe, thats why there "white"

[Edan]

Originally posted by mazzz
well sure "anti-Semetic" has never been used agaist arabs buy "Semetic" is,(well not in the west as much). think about it WHAT DOES ANTI MEAN

A words definition is based on it's useage, not the sum of the meanings of it's syllables. Does congress mean the opposite of progress?

[mazzz]

lets take your example, congress is not con-gress, its not antisemetic it is anti-semetic... take note of the seperation.

[mazzz]

Edan:
"A words definition is based on it's useage, not the sum of the meanings of it's syllables."

look up anti and compare all those words to there base words