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]

Israel would be fascinating to play as

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]

Re: Israel would be fascinating to play as

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.