Israel civ

polienco · September 22, 2002, 17:16

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

P.s
Who Design this map(world)?

Wernazuma III · September 22, 2002, 17:49

Survived????!!!! You mean that 50-years-old nation which was erected as a jewish state after 2000 years of no jewish state by more or less expelling (again) the native population of the area?
Without discussing Zionism and the whole Near-East conflict here: Don't you think it's a bit weird to say you're the oldest nation that survived? What about China then, just to give an example?

Dauphin · September 22, 2002, 17:51

Or Egypt.

jdd2007 · September 22, 2002, 19:39

we do have israel ... in the apolyton xtra civs pack

Palaiologos · September 25, 2002, 08:16

Or Greece....

Dauphin · September 25, 2002, 09:03

Or America....

Scrap that one.

Ribannah · September 26, 2002, 04:35

Or Ethiopia.

Gangerolf · September 26, 2002, 11:31

it's too small

Dauphin · September 26, 2002, 14:13

Its bigger than Israel.

Gangerolf · September 26, 2002, 19:21

I meant Israel is too small. It's tiny.

Dauphin · September 26, 2002, 19:37

SIV · September 27, 2002, 10:13

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).

We should have lots of other civs

XarXo · September 28, 2002, 14:15

The oldest civ? What about Egypt? China? Japan?...

If there is israel civ, I want a gipsy civ too.

Solomyr · September 28, 2002, 20:52

i like the idea of a gypsy civ

i agree that the State of Israel itself may not be the best choice for the representation of the Jewish people. of cpurse, the Jewish people are an historical anomoly, which is pretty damn cool IMO. However, and i (think, i) argued this in the debate for the extra civ pack, that Israel is also name the Jewish people call themselves now. the people Israel. but whatever.

Coracle · September 28, 2002, 21:52

I prefer a Palestinian civ.

jdd2007 · September 29, 2002, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
I prefer a Palestinian civ.

i remember way back when civ3 was going to come out, and SOMEONE said the same thing, with a suggestion for the UU: suicide plane that crashes into buildings...

but they got banned pretty soon

Sheik · September 29, 2002, 10:45

I have made in my mod and will be releasing soon. I have added about eight civs to my game so far.

Gangerolf · September 29, 2002, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
I prefer a Palestinian civ.

The Palestinans are a relatively modern invention

. But the Arabs are being included in PTW, and will probably get some Palestinian cities (perhaps not Jerusalem though

).

Kingof the Apes · September 30, 2002, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
I prefer a Palestinian civ.

What's their contribution to civilization, or why should they be in? Isreal has had much more effect on the world then some civs included in PTW.

Sheik · September 30, 2002, 20:38

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

XarXo · September 30, 2002, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Are you seriously saying this?

I can't believe that someone could say that

. Palestinias where before than modern Israel, remember, they had about 800 years to develop themselves (USA has aprox 300

).

About if palestinians are the same as jordanians, simply not. The name of the border state "Jordania" means the Jordan as the middle point between the old Inner Jordania (Cisjordania) and the Outer Jordania (where is Amman, the capitol). Jordania are beduins, palestinians are derived from ancient mameluks (just an example: like russia and ukrania or germany and austria, different "tribes", common/similar culture).

The Old Palestine is just the area between Inner Jordania and the mediterranean sea. Look that now palestinians claim for themselves two territories: Gaza and Cisjordania, TERRITORIES THAT NEVER WERE IN THE OLD PALESTINE, IN FACT, EGYPT AND JORDANIA "DONED" THE ACTUAL PALESTINE, so say "terrorist" to a people that WANTS and OWN STATE in territories THAT NEVER where included in the ORIGINAL USA/OCCIDENTAL GIFT to the hebrew, IMHO, is *QUITE* AN ERROR.

And THIS IS WHY in the UE we think that Sharon doesn't have "enough arguments", ok? Thanks.

Ribannah · October 1, 2002, 04:52

If terrorism is a criterion, not a single civ qualifies.

GhengisFarb™ · October 1, 2002, 10:06

I definitely support Palestinians having their own state, but I think a condition should be the elimination of terrorist activites.

For those of you who get confused on the difference between Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare. Guerilla Warfare relates to atttacking enemy military and supplies. Terrorism relates to intentially murdering civilians. Occasionally a guerilla tactic or military operation will kill civillians, the question is whether or not the civillians were the intended target as war is a gruesome and dangerous business.

A suicide bomber blowing up a building on a military base is technically guerilla warfare. Driving a bus into a marine barraks is technically guerilla warfare. Blowing up a bus or convenience store is terrorism. Driving tanks into a civillian housing area and tearing it down because one person who used to live near there became a suicide bomber is terrorism.

Flying a plane into a skyscraper to kill unsuspecting children and infants because you are too cowardly to fight the infants in hand to hand combat is DEFINITELY terroism, and in my opinion terrorists have given up all rights to humanity and civilization, should be shot, and their body left to rot in a gutter somewhere. Our civilization coddles terrorists far too much.

Anyway, ON TOPIC, as soon as I get the upgrades for my computer I'll finish the David Ben-Gurion leaderhead set for Israel. Someone has requested a Sadam Husein leaderset that I'm thinking of making.

Kingof the Apes · October 1, 2002, 19:47

Arabs encompass Palestinians anyway.

Civs that should be in but arent: Incans Isreal ..... thats it.

XarXo · October 1, 2002, 20:16

Sorry, but IMHO NOT. Israelians are (as I said twice before, one in this thread) similar to gypsies. Their are like the rich Medici Family of the USA, and I can't imagine a Medici Family civ.

Just an example: Actually, there are more catalans/valencians than israelis (more than the double of the inhabitants that live in Israel), and the Crown of Aragon controlled by far a bigger territory than Israel in all the history. So, please, accept that an actual war is THE SAME as an older war, like Yugoslavia, and we don't have Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians in Civ III, yes?

By the same reason, I don't consider necessary a Palestinian/Mameluk civ.

But Israel is a civ, I don't say that it isn't one!

GhengisFarb is making a hebrew leader, he is a 3D genius, so be patient

. It will be the same or better than a Firaxis design.

Cidifer · October 1, 2002, 21:38

Saying Isreal should have a civ is kind of dumb, but not entirly.

1st of all Palistine wasn't a country when Jewish people came there during and after WWII it was still a British mandate, it's similar to India and Pakistan arguing over Kashmir (ok I think I probably have a bunch of spelling errors) which is why, as usual, the British are to blame. When their empire started crumbling they divided up the old territories in really strang manners rather then finding out what the people living thier wanted and have left conflict in many places tp this day.

Now onto why Isreal shouldn't be a Civ, they've been around for like 50 years and aren't a great power in the world like most of the other civs are or were at one point. Like many people have pointed out it would make much more sense to have the Hebrews. Another problem with Isreal is finding a leader who people wont think of something to ***** about (though they do anyway just not as much). Yet another reason is that Isreal doesn't have a significant navy or military (though they are well trained and experienced), they only hav somethig like 40,000 in the army and that's while at war and recruiting everyone. While that's bigger then the countries around them it's not really a world power. They also don't have a very big population.

Now I'm not knocking Isreal, but I think that it's just not a civ that would work well in this game, and if there's a civ that should represent Jewish people it's probably the Hebrews.

Kingof the Apes · October 1, 2002, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Cidifer

which is why, as usual, the British are to blame.

pff, it's the French's fault

/*back on topic*/
True, the army of Isreal is not huge, but it has prevailed over several other countries that are both larger and have more personnel. (I am not sure, but I believe that Isreal has been undefeated in all of it's wars.) But military accomplishments are not the most significant part of this civilization.
The Hebrews have had huge cultural impacts on the world. Islam and Christianity, the 2 biggest religions in the world, both have roots in Judaism. I believe it is the Hebrews who first came up with the concept of 'monotheism'.

While Hebrews/Israelis can be compared to Gypsys, the comparison is not very accurate. True, it has not had a nation for a long time, and before that their homeland was conquered for a very long time before that. The Hebrew cultural effect on the world also can in no way be compared to the cultural effect of Gypsys.

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.

GhengisFarb, I'm looking forward to your leaderhead.

(as long as it's not Sharon in a thong

)

Solomyr · October 1, 2002, 23:54

though i like that kind of support, how about we avoid this argument

Estilpón · October 2, 2002, 03:57

Quote:

Guerilla Warfare relates to atttacking enemy military and supplies. Terrorism relates to intentially murdering civilians. Occasionally a guerilla tactic or military operation will kill civillians, the question is whether or not the civillians were the intended target as war is a gruesome and dangerous business.

Good point, but I'm not sure... This is a occidental point of view: when an "official" army attacks, they can produce colateral damages, when a unofficial army attacks, they produce terrorism...

or an army NEVER attacks civillians as a target...

Ribannah · October 2, 2002, 06:53

Also consider that Palestinians themselves face attacks by civilians (in addition to the Israeli military) as well as on their civilians, and have civilians (even children) fighting their cause.

In case of a civil uprising, you tend to get civilian casualties.

Usually the side that wins gets to say whether there was terrorism involved and who did it.