Why Civ always avoided Israelites?
- Thread starter vit_sin
- Start date
- Status
GenyaArikado
Judge of Love
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 798
because israel is a hot mess rn
I don't think Firaxis would want to take stand in current political events. And like it or not that would cause a lot of controversy one way or the other.
IMHO the best thing is to stay completely out of it like they do, but some would even interpret that as taking a stance (but nowhere near what they'll be facing if they included an Isreal civ).
I think what they've done is the smart thing in the long run anyway, and this has absolutely nothing to do with my own stance on Isreal.
IMHO the best thing is to stay completely out of it like they do, but some would even interpret that as taking a stance (but nowhere near what they'll be facing if they included an Isreal civ).
I think what they've done is the smart thing in the long run anyway, and this has absolutely nothing to do with my own stance on Isreal.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just telling you why it won't happen.
anandus
Errorist
Indeed, it's because of the modern state of Israel. If modern Israel didn't exist the Kingdom of Israel might've been a civ. Ironically.
For that matter:
Egypt, Rome, Arabia and France are in under which they've lived a lot longer than as an independent.
The peoples have survived 5000 years not so much the nation.
For that matter:
Egypt, Rome, Arabia and France are in under which they've lived a lot longer than as an independent.
No, many of the great nations are not in.
It's also interesting that everyone who starts threads about Israel always states something about 'jewish nation' (Judaism is in the game, of course, and rightfully so. You can even found it as Arabia...).
Edit: Oh look, I'm confusing religion and civs myself ;-)
Edit 2: When it comes to controversial civs, I'm all for Tibet first. An abundance of ideas of how to make them stick out of the crowd gameplay wise comes so easily.
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
Probably same reason the Vatican is not included other than in mods. Too controversial.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Both exist as city-states, though.
Ulthwithian
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 733
anandus: I would argue that there has been a Hebrew civilization for, well, maybe not 5000 years, but certainly longer than most Civs. 
Has there been a Hebrew nation for anywhere near that long? No. But that very fact is one reason that it should be a civilization. I guess it could depend on the requirements you place on being a Civ, but I have never seen a single requirements list or definition of Civ that would exclude a Hebrew civilization that would not also exclude multiple Civs that are already included.
Edited for clarity.
Has there been a Hebrew nation for anywhere near that long? No. But that very fact is one reason that it should be a civilization. I guess it could depend on the requirements you place on being a Civ, but I have never seen a single requirements list or definition of Civ that would exclude a Hebrew civilization that would not also exclude multiple Civs that are already included.Edited for clarity.
Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.
Stringer1313
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,174
I think Israel is a no-go for the reasons folks mention, though I wonder if Hebrews would be less controversial. The problem is that the Hebrew civilization would include a lot of cities that would be controversial, and maybe "Hebrew" sounds too obviously like they are hiding the elephant in the room. So yeah, I don't see it happening ever. I think Jerusalem as a city state is a nice compromise.
Belgium doesn't exist?
I found it interesting that they had two CS in CiV and with Bruges they had probably also a nice contender for a third one.
Im shocked aswell considering I was there last week. Did I just dream it???
You just thought you were there....
xungadrogado
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
- Messages
- 27
Its a young nation/civilization. The race itself is old as whites, blacks, chinese and other.
The Jews arent all Israelis, so we shouldnt mix i believe.
Anyway i believe its an issue to start arguing.
Im portuguese, they SHOULD keep Portugal as a playable faction, definitly. By Historical reasons obviously.
Im not complaining. Its just as it is. They should introduce every 34535 nation in the game so nobody would be angry.
The Jews arent all Israelis, so we shouldnt mix i believe.
Anyway i believe its an issue to start arguing.
Im portuguese, they SHOULD keep Portugal as a playable faction, definitly. By Historical reasons obviously.
Im not complaining. Its just as it is. They should introduce every 34535 nation in the game so nobody would be angry.
The thing about Israel, Zionism, and the wider Jewish diaspora is exactly that it hasn't.
The Israelite kingdom that the OP presumably would favour being included in the game, the one that was so important as the origin of the three Abrahamic religions, was remarkably short-lived, and there exists very little evidence for it outside of the Hebrew Bible. Being situated among the various superpowers of the ancient Middle East, it found itself invaded and conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians and Romans.
There were a couple of intermittent Israelite states, notably the revolt of Judah Maccabee against the Seleucids, and the Hasmonean puppet state within the Roman Empire, but for most of its history Israel has not existed as an independent state. It changed hands between regional powers, Crusaders, and empires ending with the Ottomans, after whom it was passed to the British. This contributed directly to the large global Jewish diaspora, and informs many of their customs and traditions. The desire to have a homeland again led to the Zionism of the 19th and 20th centuries. But it was not until the founding of the modern Israeli state in 1948 that Israel existed as an independent country once more.
While the idea of continuity as regards any civ in this game is slightly complex, it certainly can't be applied straightforwardly between the Kingdom of David and modern Israel.
That's not to say it couldn't exist as a playable civ, but in light of the various political objections that would follow, it's very unlikely Firaxis will ever release one. There will almost certainly be a mod, as there was an excellent one for Civ V. Making Jerusalem a City-State is an elegant solution.
History and politics aren't quite so separable as you might think.
MistyRonin
Warlord
I seriously think that they haven't included a full-fledged Israel / Judea civ because of the little historical impact and extension they had. It's not like Israel has ever had a huge empire.
Heck other civs with bigger Empires haven't been represented like the Genoan Empire, or the Crown of Aragon's Empire (this last one included the Kingdom of Aragon, Catalonia, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Mallorca, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Naples and Athens and Neopatria).
Adding Jerusalem as a city-state, that IMHO represent small nations is fine. There are dozens of other bigger nations that IMHO have more merits to be included.
On the religion topic, you always had the chance to found Judaism.
Heck other civs with bigger Empires haven't been represented like the Genoan Empire, or the Crown of Aragon's Empire (this last one included the Kingdom of Aragon, Catalonia, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Mallorca, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Naples and Athens and Neopatria).
Adding Jerusalem as a city-state, that IMHO represent small nations is fine. There are dozens of other bigger nations that IMHO have more merits to be included.
On the religion topic, you always had the chance to found Judaism.
Xyriach
Chieftain
Civ would have problems with Israel from a number of different angles as far as I can see.
Chiefly, Israel is somewhat of a political nightmare of a topic and immediately subjects you to bad press. How do you represent them? Are they religious, are they militaristic? No matter how you do it, you're going to anger someone and that gets you bad press which is easily avoided.
All you need is an AI Arabia or AI US attacking them due to simple AI mechanics, and now you've got a video showing how Friaxis are against Israel. If I was leading the design team, I'd tell them to leave it out and work around it rather than deal with politically hot headed Youtubers putting your game out of context and kicking you over it.
Civ, or rather the Civilopedia, is a wonderful resource which breaks the history of wonders, improvements, units and civilisations down into a remarkably well represented version of history. With Israel, you have the same problem as above. Were they a Civilisation for 5,000 years, or were they formed in 1948? Do you lament over how that piece of land has been fought over and conquered so many times that trying to claim that there has been a coherently stable civilisation there the whole time is a bit of a stretch, or do you distort history for something that's more politically (and therefore commercially) safer to represent, but perhaps not entirely true.
So you're either risking your integrity or your reputation. Either way you're risking bad press, there's no win scenario for that one as far as I can see.
(Moreover, I trust we can all imagine the outcry as screen captures of Tel Aviv being the founder of X,Y, Z religion make their way out of context around the globe. "What is this game that denies Israels identity?")
The impact on history is undeniable, but it's box, best left closed from a commercial perspective I would hazard a guess.
Chiefly, Israel is somewhat of a political nightmare of a topic and immediately subjects you to bad press. How do you represent them? Are they religious, are they militaristic? No matter how you do it, you're going to anger someone and that gets you bad press which is easily avoided.
All you need is an AI Arabia or AI US attacking them due to simple AI mechanics, and now you've got a video showing how Friaxis are against Israel. If I was leading the design team, I'd tell them to leave it out and work around it rather than deal with politically hot headed Youtubers putting your game out of context and kicking you over it.
Civ, or rather the Civilopedia, is a wonderful resource which breaks the history of wonders, improvements, units and civilisations down into a remarkably well represented version of history. With Israel, you have the same problem as above. Were they a Civilisation for 5,000 years, or were they formed in 1948? Do you lament over how that piece of land has been fought over and conquered so many times that trying to claim that there has been a coherently stable civilisation there the whole time is a bit of a stretch, or do you distort history for something that's more politically (and therefore commercially) safer to represent, but perhaps not entirely true.
So you're either risking your integrity or your reputation. Either way you're risking bad press, there's no win scenario for that one as far as I can see.
(Moreover, I trust we can all imagine the outcry as screen captures of Tel Aviv being the founder of X,Y, Z religion make their way out of context around the globe. "What is this game that denies Israels identity?")
The impact on history is undeniable, but it's box, best left closed from a commercial perspective I would hazard a guess.
- Status
Similar threads
