Oppositions to Arabs

[Cidifer]

The Isreali military recruits everyone when they turn 16 if I remember correctly and a more accurate number would be those active in the army which is somewhere in the 40-50 k range (my source comes from the World Almanac 2002 so it may be old semi out of date into)

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Cidifer
The Isreali military recruits everyone when they turn 16 if I remember correctly and a more accurate number would be those active in the army which is somewhere in the 40-50 k range (my source comes from the World Almanac 2002 so it may be old semi out of date into)

Here's a really good article I just found in the Seattle Times regarding Israel's military status. For all you military gurus, you'll find it interesting.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134433612_israelmilitary09.html

Here's some interesting quotes:

"There was a time when the United States was the unquestioned military superpower in the Middle East and drew obedient if grudging respect from all sides.

No more.

Now Israel is the region's superpower, and where it once looked to the United States not just for diplomatic support but also for military rescue, now Israel can thumb its nose at Washington and go its own way."

"Israel relies heavily on its reserve forces. There are almost 1 million Israelis under the age of 48 liable to be recalled to duty. All have done three years' active duty as well as reserve training. Reserve troops are organized into units already matched up with vehicles and weapons. "

So it appears my statistics in the above post included some military personnel over the age of 48. Still, read this article. Even I wasn't aware of the potency of their military.

[Explorer579]

What happened to the idea of splitting an empire and creating a new one out of it? This concept was in civ2. If implemented, then a superpower can split the new Arab civilization in PTW and create a jewish state. Then all will be happy and history will be emulated. Any plan by the civ3 designers to reintroduce this concept?

[Cidifer]

Yes the Isreali's also have some of the most experianced soldiers, especially in urban warfare something most americans fear as a possibility in a war with Iraq. Isreal does this every few days or weeks!

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Traelin
For all you military gurus, you'll find it interesting.
[urlhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134433612_israelmilitary09.html[/url]

Indeed. Thanx. (I'm a military guru, so... )

Originally posted by Explorer579
What happened to the idea of splitting an empire and creating a new one out of it? This concept was in civ2. If implemented, then a superpower can split the new Arab civilization in PTW and create a jewish state. Then all will be happy and history will be emulated. Any plan by the civ3 designers to reintroduce this concept?

No, lucky enough, because I won't be happy then. Israel should be in the game as a "normal" Civ!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

"There was a time when the United States was the unquestioned military superpower in the Middle East and drew obedient if grudging respect from all sides.

Now Israel is the region's superpower, and where it once looked to the United States not just for diplomatic support but also for military rescue, now Israel can thumb its nose at Washington and go its own way."

Not to incite -- but rather in my endless quest to view Civ from its own point of view of what it can model -- but I'm vaguely amazed that no one reacted to the last point in my initial post:

"5. Ironically, I'm going out on a limb here -- for a modern (post-WW2) scenario, I would suggest that the best possible SIMULATION of "Israel" WITHIN THE SCOPE AND CONFINES OF CIV is as an American city -- think about it."

Consider -- The U.S. has, since Israeli independence:

1. Acted as Israeli's proxy in the U.N. Security Council.

2. Provided endless military aide, including dangerously depleting armaments stocks in Europe at one of the heights of the Cold War, to reinforce the IDF during the 1973 war.

3. Covered up the attack upon and near sinking of a US warship, conspicuously flying American colors, by the IDF immediately prior to the 1967 war.

4. Allowed dual citizenship and not minded American citizens serving in the IDF.

5. Passed on a lot of hi-tech military hardware and info.

6. Supplies $2 BILLION years in aid.

7. Is willing to appear to the world to be Israel's puppet -- the tail wagging the dog -- re: the Palestinians.

8. Etc.

Let me conclude that I am NOT anti-Israeli, although I agree whole-heartedly with Thomas Friedman's brilliant insight that the existential dilemma for the modern SOI is that it can only be any TWO out the THREE following:

1. A Jewish Israel
2. A greater Israel
3. A democratic Israel

Pick any two, but all three can't be accomplished without actions which much of the world would consider unpalatable. It is the rabid denial of this reality that adds such misery to everyone involved and thereby fuels any tone of bitterness to my words.

... And I'd like to see Israel try to "go its own way" if (under admittedly unimagineable present circumstances) it was embargoed for all those nice American weapons platforms and C3I systems it relies on.

I'm also interested in the discounting of Turkey as a regional superpower. They're not as overtly into force projection as Israel seems to be these days, but they are part of NATO, and it's not too hard to posit -- 10 years from now? -- a serious US-European split over Israel/Palestine; some more botched attempts at American Play-Do nation building, and a democratic, secular Turkey perceiving a need to flex its not-inconsiderable muscle for regional stability in its own back yard.

-Oz

[Caliban]

Turkey has some power, true. But until now, they have never shown any interest in Israeli affairs... or am I wrong?

Btw, we already have a US-European split over Israel today. But the discussion about Hussein and Iraq is conceiling this.

[Ozymandias]

So yet another interesting digression --

Originally posted by Caliban
Turkey has some power, true. But until now, they have never shown any interest in Israeli affairs... or am I wrong?

Btw, we already have a US-European split over Israel today. But the discussion about Hussein and Iraq is conceiling this.

Turkey and Israel have been conducting joint military exercises for some time; to be cynical and quote the ancient proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Neither, for instance, have any interest in the present Iraqi regime becoming a regional power. Where they split dramatically (at least as televised) is Turkey really doesn't want a fragmented Iraq whereas Israel doesn't have that concern.

The Euro-US split over Israel is extremely under-reported in the US. I make a habit of viewing both American broadcast news and the BBC and there are times when I swear they're covering different planets.

I am amused by the current US Administration having a hissy fit over Germany not backing them on Iraq. I suppose they thought that "unilateralist" meant that their's was the only way, and that no one else might consider exercising the same right.

Who knows -- maybe the Civ3 20 Turn Treaty between the US and Europe is nearly up.

And perhaps which we should all take a deep breath about a historical moment in which Germany can legitimately berate the US over pre-emptive military action ...

-Oz

[gsmoove23]

Traelin, I would agree with your article, it points out the considerable US involvement in the current MidEast balance of power. As Ozymandia pointed out, while sometimes it may divert from the Washington political line it definately is on a leash. Take Sharon's trip to DC for instance where he will be trying to feel out what is and isn't acceptable during the US drive to war with Iraq.

But lets talk about military might and take a look at how the new intifada and continued IDF action in the West Bank and Gaza has put the Israeli economy in dire straights, no doubt the continued US support of the Israeli economy as well will prove helpful. I don't know if I would agree with Israel as a US city but certainly as a heavily propped up US ally. While the other civs all stood on their own power and had a major impact on their regions and the world militarily, politically and culturally through their independant action I don't think the same could be said for Israel.

[Caliban]

Israel might not be a stable nation TODAY, but the Israeli (or better: Hebrew) civilization once was a prosperous one, before the Romans conquered them.

It's the same with the Persians and the Babylonians: Both were run over by the Muslims (Arabs) and still they are represented in CivIII. So why not also include Israel? If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem, who knows who would rule the MidEast today... ?

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Caliban
the Israeli (or better: Hebrew) civilization once was a prosperous one, before the Romans conquered them.
...
If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem, who knows who would rule the MidEast today... ?

Probably anybody but the Civ in question --

Jerusalem was first sacked by the Egyptians in 928 BCE, then later conquered by the Assyrians (7th century BCE), Babylonians (6th century BCE), Persians (5th century BCE), Alexander the Great (4th century BCE), Alexander's successor Ptolemy (ca. 300 BCE), another Alex-successor-state the Seleucids in the 2nd century BCE, briefly independent in the 1st century CE, then the Romans, then the Eastern Romans, then the briefly resurgent Persians (7th century CE), then the Arabs (likewise 7th century CE), the Crusaders' brief appearance in the 12th century, the Mamluke Sultanate in the 14th century, next the Ottomans through the end of WWI, then the British ...

Did I miss anybody?

-Oz

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Caliban
Btw, we already have a US-European split over Israel today. But the discussion about Hussein and Iraq is conceiling this.

Yeah, are you gonna attack, or what?

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Who knows -- maybe the Civ3 20 Turn Treaty between the US and Europe is nearly up. And perhaps which we should all take a deep breath about a historical moment in which Germany can legitimately berate the US over pre-emptive military action ...

Who knows? But don't take it up to seriously.

Originally posted by Caliban
Israel might not be a stable nation TODAY, but the Israeli (or better: Hebrew) civilization once was a prosperous one, before the Romans conquered them.

It's the same with the Persians and the Babylonians: Both were run over by the Muslims (Arabs) and still they are represented in CivIII. So why not also include Israel? If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem, who knows who would rule the MidEast today... ?

The Hebrews indeed had a large empire under the reigns of David and Salomo. But that was only because Assyria, Aegyptus and Babylonia were having weak periods. If the Romans had never set foot into Jerusalem (Hierosolyma, so you want), the city would be conquered by the Parthians.

[gsmoove23]

There are a thousand small kingdoms that were overun by greater powers you could make that argument for but the real argument on a thread titled 'opposition to the arabs' is if there is an arab civ there should be a Hebrew civ and this doesn't work. The only valid point put forward against having an arab civ seems to be the fact that it clutters the world map, while an Israeli civ simply doesn't fit comfortably into the definition of a civ put forward by the game. But then again I always play as the Phoenicians so there's room for everybody.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
There are a thousand small kingdoms that were overun by greater powers you could make that argument for but the real argument on a thread titled 'opposition to the arabs' is if there is an arab civ there should be a Hebrew civ and this doesn't work. The only valid point put forward against having an arab civ seems to be the fact that it clutters the world map, while an Israeli civ simply doesn't fit comfortably into the definition of a civ put forward by the game. But then again I always play as the Phoenicians so there's room for everybody.

Phunicians?

[gsmoove23]

Phoenicians! C'mon, just north of the Jews. The REAL Carthaginians. I think I spelled it right, let me check.