Israel civ

[Solomyr]

are you saying that dropping a bomb in the cafateria of a university, walking into disco is the way to build your country?

and why on earth do you say Palestine was given to the Jews by the American? The it was the British Mandate after wwi, and the Balfour Declaration was signed by the British.

and if you are implying that israel would like to keep the palestinaines under their thumbs for the rest of history, you are reading history and the current situation wrong. why do you think israel has been trying to trade the land back since she aquired it?

anyways, your ideas aren't very clear, so i'm not going to worry about this...but it is rather strange that just as soon as i think this thread has finished it run, someone else finds it.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Solomyr
are you saying that dropping a bomb in the cafateria of a university, walking into disco is the way to build your country?

Would you say the bombing of the King David Hotel was a way to build Israel? Of course not, it was done by extremist elements within the zionist camp. Same as the events you mention were carried out by extremist elements within the West Bank and Gaza.

[Solomyr]

gsmoove23

Your argument is rather narrow minded don’t you think? It includes no historical or political context. The King David was bombed in ’46, two years prior to the creation of Israel, during a time when the British still had complete control of the area, exhibited extreme anti-Semitism by not allowing Jews refugees for Europe into Palestine, and had no desire to leave the area and allow the Jews the right of self-determination.

Where as, the Oslo process had created a government for the Palestinians and was transferring control of land and of government workings to Palestinians, which, in July 2000, over 97% of the Palestinian population lived in PA controlled Areas A, which included NO Israeli presence in the form of military or government control.

If you notice, after a Jewish government and security service were formed, the attacks stopped, where as with the Palestinians they have continued.

This doesn’t even include the difference in bombing styles. Menachem Begin wished to AVIOD the loss of life and called the King David Hotel, the French Consulate and the Palestinian Post (now the Jerusalem Post) before the bombing and warned the people the hotel was going to be bombed. The warning was ignored and lives were lost. This is significantly different than when Palestinians INTEND to kill people.

Remember that surface comparisons are not allows what they seem.

[gsmoove23]

The events of 46 were debatable as were the reasons for the bombing and so with the events of today. The British were walking a tightrope between the sympathies of two peoples. You know very well that while there certainly were anti-semitic Brits the reasons for stopping imigration were primarily the inflamatory effect it was having on the arabic population. The warning you mentioned was also highly debatable. One wonders why, if Begin really wanted to preserve lives how many died, how many British officers were lynched? As for terrorism continuing, of course it did, Deir Yassin was certainly terrorism as were many other events during and after the war of independance.

My point was, there are few countries that weren't formed in blood and the best reponse to terror isn't always more terror especially if that response has been shown to be relatively ineffectual. I certainly see the right of Israel to defend its citizens but Israel has been in control of the West Bank and Gaza for 30 plus years. Arguments that nothing will change until there is an end to all violence are simply setting themselves up for failure in a violent region. It would certainly be more convincing if combined with a real freeze on all settlements and a real crackdown on those settlements recognized as illegal by the Israeli government, plus perhaps, a leader in Israel actually showing some balls and really taking on extremists who only act to inflame the situation in places like Hebron, perhaps even removing those couple hundred settlers.

[Solomyr]

The argument that the British were walking a tight rope doesn’t do much for me. And if that is the argument you want to use, it makes the Arabs complacent in the Shoah, the Holocaust. If the Arabs pressured the Brits to stem Jewish immigration, and the Brits did so in part because of the Arab opinion, combined with the fact that Jews from all over Europe, not all of them, but many of them, were fleeing Europe, what does it say about the effects of Arab opinion? It was no secret that the Jews were being persecuted in Germany and Poland and Russia. Even before Hitler came to power, pogroms ranged across Europe.

And my point is, is that the Palestinians had the chance to form their country in Peace. In ’37 the Peel Partition would have given the Jews a tiny little state, which they accepted and which the Arabs rejected. And in ’48, the Arabs rejected a partition plan. And yes there were people there. And in the land allotted to the Jews, the Jews were the majority by ’47. And please don’t make the pathetic “colonist” argument. There is no question that the land of Israel was Jews a long time ago. It is the historic and geographic homeland of the Jews people, and if every other group of people in the world get the right of self determination in their own state, why don’t the Jews? Just because we are a historical anomaly is no reason to deny us a state.

And so the point remains the same: that after the first intifada, where much blood was spilled, the Palestinians had the chance to gain their independence, not so much from Israel, but from the Arab world. For it was the Arab world that said NO, NO, NO to a Jewish state. The land is disputed, most Israelis would very much like to give it back, and the Palestinians were lead to use violence again. And they were so close to. So just because most other states are formed in blood doesn’t mean that the Palestinians had to form theirs in the same way.

Two more quick thing: First, Israel is not using terrorism, it’s using a standing army, and it’s strategic deterrent. If we want to call force, or the threat of force terrorism, than know that still plays a great deal in the modern interactions of nations. Besides, it is working. I know there was just a bombing, but it was the first one in two weeks, and most days politics lead in the Israeli not the obituaries.

Secondly, Hebron is as much a Jewish city as it is an Arab city when it comes to history. The Tomb of the Patriarchs is there, along with the remains of the ancient Jewish Kingdom. Admittedly now the population is almost entirely Arab, but seeings as how the Arabs have a poor history of allow Jews to visit our holy sights, it is reasonable that more religious Jews to be concerned.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Solomyr
And my point is, is that the Palestinians had the chance to form their country in Peace. In ’37 the Peel Partition would have given the Jews a tiny little state, which they accepted and which the Arabs rejected. And in ’48, the Arabs rejected a partition plan. And yes there were people there. And in the land allotted to the Jews, the Jews were the majority by ’47. And please don’t make the pathetic “colonist” argument. There is no question that the land of Israel was Jews a long time ago. It is the historic and geographic homeland of the Jews people, and if every other group of people in the world get the right of self determination in their own state, why don’t the Jews? Just because we are a historical anomaly is no reason to deny us a state.

The Franks came from the Baltics. Should that give them a right to claim the Baltics. The jewish faith originated from the southern Levant. The jews 'returning' to Israel after WWII, most of them at least, did not ascend from those who once lived in Israel. (Believe it or not: lots of jews were converted to christianity and islam, lots of non-jews were taken into the community. I know this was not a very open community, but in a period of 2000 years every little bit makes a difference.) I would not deny the jews the right of self determination and to a state, but with a state comes territory and on that territory people already lived. You have to realise that from one day onto another there were dozens of Palestinians who were told the territory they now lived in was given away to the jews. Were they supposed to surrender and think: Hey, there is a Palestinian state, just too bad it isn't here.

Originally posted by Solomyr
And so the point remains the same: that after the first intifada, where much blood was spilled, the Palestinians had the chance to gain their independence, not so much from Israel, but from the Arab world. For it was the Arab world that said NO, NO, NO to a Jewish state. The land is disputed, most Israelis would very much like to give it back, and the Palestinians were lead to use violence again. And they were so close to. So just because most other states are formed in blood doesn’t mean that the Palestinians had to form theirs in the same way.

The Palestinians are desperate and some think blowing up busses or something like that is a good idea. Most Palestinians are sick of the continuant fighting just as most Israelis do. In my opinion the jewish state shouldn't been formed, but since it is here I wouldn't abolish it. There now is an Israeli state and they would have to accept that and put there feuds aside (and so should Israel).

Originally posted by Solomyr
Secondly, Hebron is as much a Jewish city as it is an Arab city when it comes to history. The Tomb of the Patriarchs is there, along with the remains of the ancient Jewish Kingdom. Admittedly now the population is almost entirely Arab, but seeings as how the Arabs have a poor history of allow Jews to visit our holy sights, it is reasonable that more religious Jews to be concerned.

If you are so concerned about history you should know that throughout the ages the muslims have always been very tolerant with visitors to holy shrines in the 'Holy' land. What poor history are you refering to?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Solomyr
The argument that the British were walking a tight rope doesn’t do much for me. And if that is the argument you want to use, it makes the Arabs complacent in the Shoah, the Holocaust. If the Arabs pressured the Brits to stem Jewish immigration, and the Brits did so in part because of the Arab opinion, combined with the fact that Jews from all over Europe, not all of them, but many of them, were fleeing Europe, what does it say about the effects of Arab opinion? It was no secret that the Jews were being persecuted in Germany and Poland and Russia. Even before Hitler came to power, pogroms ranged across Europe.

For what reason would an arab living in a predominately arab land have a responsibility to jews in europe. If the question were simply allowing a large number of refugees in for humanitarian reasons then I'm sure there would have never been an issue. However, a large community of jews already existed, with organizations buying up land that could only be sold back to jews and a strong political movement calling for a Jewish national state in all of Palestine. Also, Palestine wasn't the first choice of most european jews, neither were most of the original palestinian jews happy about mass emigration, it was a policy of the zionist sect not all jews. Requiring that refugees be allowed entry into Palestine as opposed to anywhere else is a Jewish nationalist argument not a humanitarian one.

Originally posted by Solomyr
And my point is, is that the Palestinians had the chance to form their country in Peace. In ’37 the Peel Partition would have given the Jews a tiny little state, which they accepted and which the Arabs rejected. And in ’48, the Arabs rejected a partition plan. And yes there were people there. And in the land allotted to the Jews, the Jews were the majority by ’47. And please don’t make the pathetic “colonist” argument. There is no question that the land of Israel was Jews a long time ago. It is the historic and geographic homeland of the Jews people, and if every other group of people in the world get the right of self determination in their own state, why don’t the Jews? Just because we are a historical anomaly is no reason to deny us a state.

In 37 the Jewish community was also strongly opposed to the agreement, palestinians were not the deal breaker. The Jews were not a majority by 47, that would only be the case after the ethnic cleansing of 48. and yes I will make the pitiful colonist argument, the idea of geographic homelands and historical rights to territory is plainly ridiculous to anyone who is not a party to ultra-nationalist politics or biblical politics. Am I supposed to believe, as an atheist, muslim, bhuddist, whatever, that jews have a right to Israel cause its right here in this book written by Jews? Its ridiculous. territories change or Africa is everyone's historical territory. take your pick. Israel is a fait accompli (spelling?) I am not arguing its right to exist, it does exist, its full of wonderful people who have a right to call it home, but perceived palestinian 'mistakes' is no justification for the current situation.

Originally posted by Solomyr
And so the point remains the same: that after the first intifada, where much blood was spilled, the Palestinians had the chance to gain their independence, not so much from Israel, but from the Arab world. For it was the Arab world that said NO, NO, NO to a Jewish state. The land is disputed, most Israelis would very much like to give it back, and the Palestinians were lead to use violence again. And they were so close to. So just because most other states are formed in blood doesn’t mean that the Palestinians had to form theirs in the same way.

This I hear a lot. Most Israelis would very much like to give it back, and I agree. This does not change the fact that settlements are still expanding with considerable help from the government in expensive subsidies and security. Ridiculous settlements like the ones in Hebron are not being removed, instead Sharon is saying things like 'territorial contiguity' with other Jewish communities should be established. The IDF plays around with the idea of removing illegal settlements instead of growing some balls and actually removing all settlements deemed by Israel to be illegal, seems common sense to me. Still, no significant opposition in Israel has risen to these actions obviously directed at maintaining and expanding an Israeli hold on palestinian land. What are people outside of Israel supposed to think?

Originally posted by Solomyr
Two more quick thing: First, Israel is not using terrorism, it’s using a standing army, and it’s strategic deterrent. If we want to call force, or the threat of force terrorism, than know that still plays a great deal in the modern interactions of nations. Besides, it is working. I know there was just a bombing, but it was the first one in two weeks, and most days politics lead in the Israeli not the obituaries.

Now this is a pitiful argument. Its semantics and it argues my point. "If we want to call force, or the threat of force terrorism, than know that still plays a great deal in the modern interactions of nations." This is my point, palestinian terrorism is the same though it doesn't fall under the moniker of the actions of a standing army. I am certain that military action is working in a way, but at what extravagant costs. Palestinian cities cannot be locked down under curfew forever, nor can you keep such a significant military presence active indefinately. Something has to change politically and diplomatically to have any real effect.

Originally posted by Solomyr
Secondly, Hebron is as much a Jewish city as it is an Arab city when it comes to history. The Tomb of the Patriarchs is there, along with the remains of the ancient Jewish Kingdom. Admittedly now the population is almost entirely Arab, but seeings as how the Arabs have a poor history of allow Jews to visit our holy sights, it is reasonable that more religious Jews to be concerned.

Hebron is also an arab holy place so it will be treated well. If the current political atmosphere makes it difficult for Jews to visit then that is one more reason to foster peace. The Hebron settlements certainly do not foster peace. If you were to make your historical rights argument it could be used for every part of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and possibly beyond. While I'm sure this makes some fanatic Zionists happy it has got to stop somewhere, why not the Green Line.

[Silpy]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but when anybody suggests a new Civ to be on Civ III, I think about how it would cope on a real world map. Isreal, as some of you have noted, has dissapeared form c. 600BC-1948AD. The problem is, she would be a weak buffer between Egypt and the Babalonians, and conquered quickly.
The same for the following

Celts
Poles
Thai
Turks

They will not have a chance.
Sorry again, people

[Beren]

Originally posted by Silpy
Sorry to rain on your parade, but when anybody suggests a new Civ to be on Civ III, I think about how it would cope on a real world map. Isreal, as some of you have noted, has dissapeared form c. 600BC-1948AD. The problem is, she would be a weak buffer between Egypt and the Babalonians, and conquered quickly.
The same for the following

Celts
Poles
Thai
Turks

They will not have a chance.
Sorry again, people

May I point forward that the Celts and the Turks are included in the PTW and that the Thai are not in a densely populated area and there is no reason why they should be conquered quickly (and another point: what's wrong with being conquered quickly?)
Apart from your argumentation I do agree that Israel shouldn't be in CivIII

[Heresson]

Israel was never a major power.
To be a docent civ, it would be expected from it to take
entire Syria. I think it would be a better choice to make a Syrian/Aramaic civ.

It was no secret that the Jews were being persecuted in Germany and Poland and Russia

Some example of persecutions in Poland, huh?
Tell me, if Jews were persecuted in my country, why did Jews come en masse to it?
When it comes to Russia, it did restrict Jewish settlement to post-Polish territories, and it did encite
pogroms there - however Poles were a minority on these grounds, had no impact on anything and were persecuted as well, so how can they be responsible?
When it comes to middlewar period, Jews had full rights
as a national minority - which status was opposed by some of the jewish organisations that felt Polish.

Armenia would be a good civ. It had its imperial status under Tigranes the Great when it stretched up to Palestine. It was continously live civ from Urartu up to the present times. It had enormous impact on Roman/Byzantine civilization. Armenia was a first state (if You don't count Edessa, which is not sure) state to adapt christianity. Great Armenians include such persons
like Narses, the one who conquered Italy for Justinian;
Mautritius, a great Byzantine emperor; Heraclius, the emperor who reconquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt from Persians and his dinasty stopped Arab progress on Taurus mountains; John Kurkuas (o.s.l.t) the first Byzantine general to start Byzantine reconquista in the east; John Tzimiskes, another emperor, who defeated Kievan Rus and conquered Bulgaria; Basil Bulgaroktonos,
the emperor who finally conquered Bulgaria for Byzantines and generally was perhaps the best Byzantine emperor ever; Gauhar, Fatimid general that conquered Egypt for them,
and many many more...
Armenians created unique culture, and were the victims of first Holocaust, on which resemblance Hitler dealed with Jews.

[Silpy]

Name a country which has not harrased Jews in some peroid of history. We just remenber the worst. (Germany in particular) Whatever you think of the Jews, you have to give them credit of 2000 years of near-contant harrasment, persicution and occasional genaside, there are still Jewish people on earth.

NB Pre-war Poland was not so nice to Jews as you make out. In 1937, when there were thousands of Jews of German desent living in Poland, the Polish goverment stipped them the right to live in Poland, and deported them 'back home' to Germany. Obvously, Germany did'nt want them, and these poor people were forced to live in intermnet camps, no better than the Ghettos later, in their own country. In 1941, these camps promptly were emptied, but none of the inhabitants were heard of or seen again.......

Not so sure about an Armenian Civ. Don't know enough to judge.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Silpy
Name a country which has not harrased Jews in some peroid of history. We just remenber the worst. (Germany in particular) Whatever you think of the Jews, you have to give them credit of 2000 years of near-contant harrasment, persicution and occasional genaside, there are still Jewish people on earth.

Well, not all of these 2000 years were so dangerous to jews. In the Roman empire they had little trouble, their only problem was that they wouldn't worship the Roman gods, but most of the time it was no big deal to the Romans. They had more problems with them because they persistently revolted. (Two great revolts) The Romans didn't hate the jews, but the jews hated the Romans.
Unlike what many of you may think there have been jewish states since a few centuries BCE. But they were never prominent. In the Muslim Empires jews had relative freedom of movement.
They were invited into Europe by Charlemagne. The closed communities developed there, because though they were alowed to be in Christian Europe, they were segregated from the rest of the population.
Anti-jewish sentiment only arose in the second half of the eleventh century and from that time on they were to be given a hard time in Europe with notably hard after the plague and after the reconquest of Iberia.

[Silpy]

I am not doubting that there were Jewish communities thoughout History, but they were never truly independant. Any until about 1700-1800 AD, Jews were limited by law about where they could live, what trades they could do, and where they could worship in Western Europe. The Islamic world at this time was freer for them (with occasional exeptions). They used to welcome Jews to Islamic countries, but it was only when Jewish immigrants started going to Palestine in the 1920's they were less welcoming.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Silpy
Name a country which has not harrased Jews in some peroid of history. We just remenber the worst. (Germany in particular) Whatever you think of the Jews, you have to give them credit of 2000 years of near-contant harrasment, persicution and occasional genaside, there are still Jewish people on earth.

NB Pre-war Poland was not so nice to Jews as you make out. In 1937, when there were thousands of Jews of German desent living in Poland, the Polish goverment stipped them the right to live in Poland, and deported them 'back home' to Germany. Obvously, Germany did'nt want them, and these poor people were forced to live in intermnet camps, no better than the Ghettos later, in their own country. In 1941, these camps promptly were emptied, but none of the inhabitants were heard of or seen again.......

Not so sure about an Armenian Civ. Don't know enough to judge.

Everyone were harassing everyone, not only Jews.
Yet, in Poland, except for Chmielnicki's uprising's times,
when enraged Ukrainian peasants were slaughtering Poles and Jews, Jews were living safely. Again I remind You that 80% of world Jewish population lived in Polish state.
Today, is anyone accepting mass immigrants?
Tell me; do Lebaneese hate Palestians? Don't think so.
Still, Palestians were and are living in camps.
Does France or Britain accept every wave of immigrants
that comes to it?
Earlier, Poland accepted enormous wave of Jewish refugees from USSR.

[Silpy]

Everyone were harassing everyone, not only Jews.
Yet, in Poland, except for Chmielnicki's uprising's times,
when enraged Ukrainian peasants were slaughtering Poles and Jews, Jews were living safely. Again I remind You that 80% of world Jewish population lived in Polish state.
Today, is anyone accepting mass immigrants?
Tell me; do Lebaneese hate Palestians? Don't think so.
Still, Palestians were and are living in camps.
Does France or Britain accept every wave of immigrants
that comes to it?
Earlier, Poland accepted enormous wave of Jewish refugees from USSR.

OK, your info on Poland is greater than mine. I admit that. 80% of the world's Jewish population were living in Poland? Is it counting ethinic or practising? Anyway, lots of Jews did settle in Poland due to it being the 'Jewish Pale', set up by Catherine the Great.

Yes, many Lebanese people do hate Palestinians (well, the ones in Lebanon) for many reasons.
1)They got involved in the civil war. The PLO was in control of parts of Beruit.
2)That led to Isreal in setting up a 'buffer zone' which they de-populated of local people.
3)Many of the immigrants are poorly educated, and they are taking jobs form Lebanese.

It may not be the same now, as most of my info on Lebanon is arounf 1997-1998, but nothing can change that far...can it?

France, strangly is now more welcoming to immigrants than the UK. Strange for a nation who 20% of the voting adults are facists. And I do believe that the richest part of the world should let in more immigrants than they do now.