How come Firaxis didn't create an Israely Empire on Civ4???

[Mott1]

Anyway this is not at all whats up for debate here.

You are right this is not the place to discuss the polemics of modern Israel, that is why I do not elaborate when the topic tends to drift in that area.
Perhaps some other time and some other place you and I can initiate dialogue on that topic.

The point is, "Israel" is not a civilization or an empire any more than the Afghan taliban was.

Actually that is not the point, it is your view point. People on this board that share the same mainstream view of Israel will form the subjective and untrue argument you have posed above.

To put it on the same plain as Roman, English, Greek, German, Chinese, and Russian Empires is absurd.

Perhaps not, but that is not my argument. Israel can certainly be put on the same plane as Babylon, Assaria, Sumaria, Arabia and every other Middle Eastern civilization. Peruse Sharules post above and let go of any contempt you harbor for Israel and then form an objective opinion.

 

[Sharule]

The popular opinion: Jews have the right to create a free Jewish state in the Middle East because of the great crimes of the "Holocaust" and their "prophecies"

You put Holocaust in quotes. That implies that it was made up or falsified. Your arguments about Israel are justified, and I will not play the Anti-semitism card there, however suggesting the Holocaust was made up, or exagerated is anti-semitic, and hurtful.

 

[Mott1]

You put Holocaust in quotes. That implies that it was made up or falsified. Your arguments about Israel are justified, and I will not play the Anti-semitism card there, however suggesting the Holocaust was made up, or exagerated is anti-semitic, and hurtful.

Sharule,
However misguided his views may be he has a every right to exercise his freedom of speech. Although he holds an antagonistic dispostion toward Israel he has not shown any ethnic hatred. I don't feel his comments were anti-semitic, perhaps ignorant and irrisponsible but not anti-semitic.
On a side note you may feel his shallow arguments toward Israel are justified but I don't.

 

[Sharule]

Okay, so.

Reality: Ashkenazi Jews came to occupied land which they have no claim to, committed genocide against the people who inhabited the land, and declared a Jewish racial apartheid regime

Apartheid: A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Israel Never commited anything close to Apartheid. Christians and Muslims live alongside Jews in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and the rest of Israel.
Israel has never had any policy of systematic extermination of the Palestinian people.
So your wrong, flat out wrong.
Oh, and most Israeli Jews are Mizerahi or Sephardic, not Ashkernazi. And they didnt steal the land, most of it was bought under Ottoman laws.

Fabricated? It's just plain true. There has never been a Gentile prime minister nor any Gentile in the Zionist Knesset. The dominant Palestinian communities have zero representation in their own homeland.

Actually there are currently at least 5 Arab Israelis elected and serving in the Knesset: source. And there a few Christians as well, so actually youre wrong again, there are Gentiles in Israeli government.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Really?
Lets take a look at the "practically nothing" Israel has contributed to the world in just the past 45 years. Keep in mind this is just a partial list.


1. The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

This is an example of americano-centrism.
North-european countries was years before the launch of Motorola in 1973 ...

Regards

P.S. : I.M.H.O. Israel is quasi-irelevant compared with many of civs actually existing in Civ4 or Civ3 Vanilla. But compared with some civs from Civ3 Conquest expansion ... that's something else ... . Anyway - this disscusion became for too explosive ...

 

[Brighteye]

Well, I looked up the definition of civilization in the dictionary and other similar sources and there is nothing about "a state of being civilized".
Regardless I've never used the term civilization in that manner anyway.

I used the OED, as I said in my post. OED stands for Oxford English Dictionary, and is the authority on the English language. I've never used it that way either, and since neither of us is using that definition, we're both ignoring the definition.

This seems to be your own personal definition, if not is it a Firaxis definition? If it is please link the source of the above definition.

...you have merely 'said' how political continuity is a part of the game definition, do you have access to some disclosed Firaxis definition that I am not aware of?
Do you have absolute authority of the game definition of civilization?
You have stressed that political continuity is part of the definition of civilization, I countered that it is not because I am using the term civilization as it is defined in the dictionary, encylopedia or any other valid scource. Political continuity in no way defines civilization, I am not making this up, look it yourself.
Maybe this is why we have a misunderstanding.

I was deducing the Firaxis definition from the game. Firaxis are not just modelling civilizations, but empires. Their definition certainly isn't the dictionary one, but neither is yours. If the OED isn't a valid source then what is?
It's fairly obvious that Civ games model some degree of political power. For a civ to be a good role model for gamers it needs to have had political continuity. A gamer won't get far if he says 'my civ was just conquered, but I can still win because the people are still civilized'.

I understand this, but apparently your argument revolves around your version of how civs should be defined.
How about you state your version of the term civilization and we will use your definition of civilization for the remainder of this debate.

I have avoided giving a specific definition other than what is in the dictionary. A civilization is a very difficult thing to define precisely. However, it is clear that Firaxis are not solely modelling civilization, but empires/power as well. This is not me making up rules as I go along, as you say later, but me observing how the game works.

Again you are making up rules as you go along, do you own a copy of "Firaxis ultimate handbook of rules and terms" by chance?

I do have such a handbook. It's called Civ4. All the terms that I'm using I'm using in the context of the game. My definitions are my attempt to explain how Firaxis have made their decisions, judging from the outcome. If you dislike it, you can ask them to change their definition of civilization. I am merely explaining how they get to the outcome quite rationally.

It is highly likely that in the expansion another civilization or two will be implemented in the region of the Middle East.
I am curious what would be your choices?

Mesopotamian civilizations would include Assaria, Babylonia, Persia and Sumaria.
Can you please state what impact these civilizations have had on the world?

If you want to know about Persia, there's a 20-page thread or so all about it. I know very little about the others, except recognising the names. Perhaps we should look in old civ games' civilopedias, since these civs were in old games.

This statement alone proves that your low opinion of modern Israel dramatically influences your enitre argument.
Don't get me wrong even though I disagree with your view of modern Israel you have every right to express your opinion.
I am only stating that you are coming into this argument with a subjective view and it is unfair to the civilization you oppose.

Yes, I do have a low opinion of modern Israel. Britain had IRA bombers for a number of years, but we haven't yet bulldozed Irish villages, destroyed orchards, deliberately killed civilians, built a big wall or forcibly settled Northern Irish land with people from the rest of Britain.
With such actions being what modern Israel is best known for it's further from the OED definition of civilization than most other countries.

I was rather taken with Sharule's post about ancient Israel. I don't know much about the contemporary empires, but the post makes a reasonable case for ancient Israel as a civ in the game. I would vehemently oppose having modern Israel in the game.

 

[Cam. of Erracht]

You put Holocaust in quotes. That implies that it was made up or falsified. Your arguments about Israel are justified, and I will not play the Anti-semitism card there, however suggesting the Holocaust was made up, or exagerated is anti-semitic, and hurtful.

Although there is a considerable weight of evidence supporting the Holocaust's existence, its effects and direction are often exaggerated. Indeed, some have deliberately twisted the truth to suit their ends. Taking a neutal stance, it can be said with reasonable certainty (based on the evidence available) that, of approximately 12million victims (it is suspected that the true figure is higher but shall never be known), 5 to 6 million were Jewish or perceived to be so by the Schutzstaffel. As this constitutes barely half of the total, the use of inverted commas around the word 'Holocaust' refers to the common, and patently incorrect, misconception that Jews and only Jews were persecuted and executed during it.

I hope that this is of use.

 

[Sharule]

Yes, the Holocaust is one of the worst atrocities. It is not an atrocity for just the Jewish deaths. The holocaust serves as an example how dangerous any philosophy can be, including religious and secular ones. However, Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies(Roma), Communists, Socialists, Mental and physically handicapped people and other 'inferiors' died in the Holocaust. I have a friend who is Polish, some of his family also died in the Holocaust. I did not mean to imply that Jews were the only victims, indeed per capita, Gypsies were hurt far worse.
I do think that denying the Holocaust is not just hurtful to Jews though, it indeed would offend many Poles and Gypsies as well.

Now the topic has been dragged off topic too far, back to the essentials.

 

[Mott1]

I was deducing the Firaxis definition from the game. Firaxis are not just modelling civilizations, but empires.

Fair enough, but you are aware that you and I or anyone else can deduce the Firaxis definition quite differently.
If I were to agree that Firaxis designed in-game civs to model civilizations and empires, I don't see how this would exclude Israel.

Empire-Supreme and political dominion;that exersiced by an 'emperor', or by a sovereign state over its dependencies.~(OED)

Firaxis definition certainly isn't the dictionary one, but neither is yours. If the OED isn't a valid source then what is?

Of course the OED is a valid source as is both the Marriam and Webster dictionaries.
True, your interpretation of the Firaxis definition does not match the definiton given in the dictionary however my definition does.

A civilization consists of a centralized government and most importantly a developed social/cultural structure.

The above is my definition from a previous post and I have maintained this definition throughout the debate.
Lets compare it to the definitions listed below:

Civilization,

1a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development
b: the culture characteristic of a particular time of place~(Marriam Dictionary)

A developed or advanced state of human society; a particular type of this~(OED)

A society in an advanced state of development~(Webster)

As you can see my definition is in fact correct.

It's fairly obvious that Civ games model some degree of political power. For a civ to be a good role model for gamers it needs to have had political continuity.

You continue to emphasize political continuity when I have clearly demonstrated that a)political continuity does not define a civilization as shown in the above authorized definitions and b)that your oberservation of political continuity with regards to in-game civs is flawed.

A gamer won't get far if he says 'my civ was just conquered, but I can still win because the people are still civilized'.

This is your argument for political continuity and it is flawed simply because this argument can apply to many civs already represented in the game.
Egypt has been conquererd a number of times, China has been conquered, France has been conquered. Is France prior to German conquest considered the same entity as the France after its liberation? Was not political continuity severed?

I have avoided giving a specific definition other than what is in the dictionary. A civilization is a very difficult thing to define precisely. However, it is clear that Firaxis are not solely modelling civilization, but empires/power as well. This is not me making up rules as I go along, as you say later, but me observing how the game works.

Is it possible that your observation may be wrong?

I do have such a handbook. It's called Civ4. All the terms that I'm using I'm using in the context of the game. My definitions are my attempt to explain how Firaxis have made their decisions, judging from the outcome. If you dislike it, you can ask them to change their definition of civilization. I am merely explaining how they get to the outcome quite rationally.

I am not going to ask Firaxis to change their definition simply because they have not given a definition. Their is no Firaxis definition.
First you state your definition is an attempt to explain how Firaxis have made their decisions and then on the following sentence you claim that your definition is the factual Firaxis definition.
I dont see a problem with you building an argument on your personal observatons, although I do see a problem when you claim your observations as fact.

Yes, I do have a low opinion of modern Israel. Britain had IRA bombers for a number of years, but we haven't yet bulldozed Irish villages, destroyed orchards, deliberately killed civilians, built a big wall or forcibly settled Northern Irish land with people from the rest of Britain.
With such actions being what modern Israel is best known for it's further from the OED definition of civilization than most other countries.

When you direct an accusation at someone you should atleast list sources to validify your accusations or else it will amount to nothing but hot air and slanderiztion.
Also please keep in mind that their are awlays two sides to a story.

Comparing IRA to Islamic terrorism is like comparing apples to oranges.
Both are evil but these are two entirely different ideologies.
It would be foolish to assume that the method used to combat the IRA can also be applied to Islamic terrorism. Islamic terroists know only the language of retribution, they respect and fear nothing else. If you were to meet the demands of Islamic terrorists they would not look upon this as an act of peace but rather an act of weakness on your part. They would claim this as a victory for their terroristic methods and invigorate them to double their efforts.
An example of this is seen in the Israeli withdrawal of the Gaza strip.
The Palistenans did not see this as Israels attempt towards a peace process rather they claimed it as victory for the Hamas terrorist organization.
Hamas was elected by an overwhelming majority because of this.

Lets take a look at the Isalmic terrorist mindset, no one can explain it better than the Islamic terrorists themselves or rather ex-terrorists as shown in the clip below.

Interview with three ex-Muslim terrorists.
http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm

As I have stated their is always two sides to a story.

I was rather taken with Sharule's post about ancient Israel. I don't know much about the contemporary empires, but the post makes a reasonable case for ancient Israel as a civ in the game. I would vehemently oppose having modern Israel in the game.

Then this debate has been somewhat of a success, for atleast we have come to a mutual understanding with regards to ancient Israel.

 

[Brighteye]

Fair enough, but you are aware that you and I or anyone else can deduce the Firaxis definition quite differently.
If I were to agree that Firaxis designed in-game civs to model civilizations and empires, I don't see how this would exclude Israel.

Empire-Supreme and political dominion;that exersiced by an 'emperor', or by a sovereign state over its dependencies.~(OED)

Yep, sure Israel is covered by this definition. So is Luxembourg. Both have supreme and political dominion over their lands (or at least as much as the other has). Neither has an emperor or, as far as I know, dependencies. From what Sharule said, Israel never had dependencies. Is Luxembourg, and every other sovereign state, an empire? I suspect that the OED definition is lacking something, certainly with regards to common usage of the word.

Of course the OED is a valid source as is both the Marriam and Webster dictionaries.
True, your interprtation of the Firaxis definition does not match the definiton given in the dictionary however my definition does.

Yep, and that was my point. You are claiming that because Israel is a civilisation according to the dictionary definition it should be in the game. I was saying that Firaxis have extra discriminating factors that determine what goes in the game, and I made some suggestions about what these might be, based on my observations of the Civ series. If every civilized country was in the game we'd have a choice of hundreds, which is quite a lot of programming for Firaxis.

The above is my definition from a previous post and I have maintained this definition throughout the debate.
Lets compare it to the definitions listed below:

Civilization,

1a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development
b: the culture characteristic of a particular time of place~(Marriam Dictionary)

A developed or advanced state of human society; a particular type of this~(OED)

A society in an advanced state of development~(Webster)

As you can see my definition is in fact correct.

Yes, your definition agrees with the dictionaries, and my suggestion of the extra things that Firaxis use does not. I did not claim that my definition (based on the game) was the correct definition of civilization; I think that if this is going to be a major issue then they should change the name of the game to 'Political powers'. It doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but it makes more sense to change the name to reflect what they're trying to model than change the whole model to accurately reflect the name.

You continue to emphasize political continuity when I have clearly demonstrated that a)political continuity does not define a civilization as shown in the above authorized definitions and b)that your oberservation of political continuity with regards to in-game civs is flawed.

No it doesn't define civ. It is part of what the civs in the game are there for. My original point about continuity was solely about mixing ancient and modern Israel. As far as Empires that no longer exist are concerned, the point is that for them to be in the game, one particular empire needs to have been special enough to get in the game on its own merit, without needing support from the achievements of people of the same country at a different era in history.
Egypt and others fulfill this criterion. None of your points about continuity make this a flawed point, so I ignored them. Those empires had continuity; an Israeli empire based on both modern and ancient Israel does not.

This is your argument for political continuity and it is flawed simply because this argument can apply to many civs already represented in the game.
Egypt has been conquererd a number of times, China has been conquered, France has been conquered. Is France prior to German conquest considered the same entity as the France after its liberation? Was not political continuity severed?

I've considered this before, but maybe not in this thread. No, France is not the same political entity, but because of the shortness of the period in which France was conquered you could argue that it's alright to model them as the same; in the game this would be someone conquering a load of cities but not removing rebellion before being driven out again. Even if you're being lenient like this (and I suspect that you're not inclined to be) 2,000 years or so of Israel not existing is a bit too much for the Israels to be the same.

Is it possible that your observation may be wrong?

Of course. And you could also be a flying pig sent to torment the world. More likely is that my conclusions are wrong. But even this is doubtful. If Firaxis really have no more ways of distinguishing entities to put in the game other than whether they fit the dictionary definition of civilization then, as I have said, there are hundreds to choose from, presumably randomly, and so Israel is unlikely to be chosen.
If Firaxis do use further discriminators, then whether I say that they use a different definition of civilization (which, now I think about it, is not the best way of describing it), or whether I merely call them extras, then Israel clearly does not fit them. My conclusions are therefore probable, because Israel does not fit the additions I have made, whereas all the other civs seem to.

I am not going to ask Firaxis to change their definition simply because they have not given a definition. Their is no Firaxis definition.
First you state your definition is an attempt to explain how Firaxis have made their decisions and then on the following sentence you claim that your definition is the factual Firaxis definition.
I dont see a problem with you building an argument on your personal observatons, although I do see a problem when you claim your observations as fact.

A definition is implied by making a game called civilization. First I state that I'm deducing their definition from my observations, and, having made this point, I then refer to this definition as the Firaxis definition to avoid confusion between this and the dictionary versions. There is no inconsistency. My observations are fact. The conclusions might be untrue, but then that leads to another possibility that Firaxis chose the civs at random. Either way, a complaint that Israel fits the dictionary definition of civilization does not lead to the conclusion that there really ought to be an Israeli civilization actually in the game.

When you direct an accusation at someone you should atleast list sources to validify your accusations or else it will amount to nothing but hot air and slanderiztion.
Also please keep in mind that their are awlays two sides to a story.

Comparing IRA to Islamic terrorism is like comparing apples to oranges.
Both are evil but these are two entirely different ideologies.
It would be foolish to assume that the method used to combat the IRA can also be applied to Islamic terrorism. Islamic terroists know only the language of retribution, they respect and fear nothing else. If you were to meet the demands of Islamic terrorists they would not look upon this as an act of peace but rather an act of weakness on your part. They would claim this as a victory for their terroristic methods and invigorate them to double their efforts.
An example of this is seen in the Israeli withdrawal of the Gaza strip.
The Palistenans did not see this as Israels attempt towards a peace process rather they claimed it as victory for the Hamas terrorist organization.
Hamas was elected by an overwhelming majority because of this.

The IRA, like all terrorist organisations, is not one we should give in to. They are no different from Hamas in this regard; both would take heart from this weakness. Both groups regard themselves as freedom fighters fighting for a just cause. You have described here how Hamas operates, but not described how you believe the IRA is different.

Lets take a look at the Isalmic terrorist mindset, no one can explain it better than the Islamic terrorists themselves or rather ex-terrorists as shown in the clip below.

Interview with three ex-Muslim terrorists.
http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm

As I have stated their is always two sides to a story.



Then atleast this debate has been somewhat of a success, for atleast we have come to a mutual understanding with regards to ancient Israel.

Maybe. It makes ancient Israel sound more impressive than I had thought, but it'd be nice to see a representative from all the competing ancient nations give an account of why their nation should be included. As you say, there are two sides to every story, and although I'd never seen this one, I'd like to see the other one before deciding. After all, there's limited room in Civ, so it's not about reaching a certain point, but being higher than the rivals. Sharule presents a good case.

How Firaxis judge this can always be called arbitrary, whatever rationale they adopt. Their current system seems perfectly adequate.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Comparing IRA to Islamic terrorism is like comparing apples to oranges.

IMHO the only real difference ( and not the ones created by media/artificially induced to peoples ) is in purpose of the two organisation. IRA would probably give up the figth after eliberating/reconquest Northen Ireland and would not proceed until they "drop off entire english people on sea" while Hamas have a clear and definite purpose to complete eliminate Israel as state/political entity and so on ...

Just my 2 cents ...

Regards all.

P.S. : I'm curios what actually included civ should replace Israel in the game in your opinion Mott1 ?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And one side note: England Did settle Northern Ireland with people from the rest of Britain.. admittedly they did it a few hundred years a go, but that is the whole problem with Northern Ireland (and why it is not part of the rest of Ireland, because its population is a mix of those who identify with the Republic of Ireland and those who identify with the rest of Britain)

 

[Damion_Foster]

mmmk...here's what I think....galactic civilizations 2 has it right as far as major and minor civs....I don't think that iseral has had enough impact on the world to be called a major world power, even though they are one of the....what....10 official countries with nukes (soon to be 12 or 13 when the UN gets it's act together.....pffft...)but as a minor power and in the MODERN ERA it has had the influance and the impact to be a minor power...look at all the controversy that is sparked by just the mention of isreal....LOOK AT THE PAST WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PAGES OF ARGUMENTS AND WHATNOT ON HERE AND OTHER THREADS MENTIONING ISREAL!

Fact is, no they arent a Major civilization, but in fact they are a minor civ that at one point in time DOES deserve the credibility of an established nation

 

[Archduke Otto]

To put it on the same plain as Roman, English, Greek, German, Chinese, and Russian Empires is absurd.

I agree with this, I must admitt. I won't go into anything else, since, as cam said, extreme caution must be taken here.

 

[Mott1]

Yep, sure Israel is covered by this definition. So is Luxembourg. Both have supreme and political dominion over their lands (or at least as much as the other has). Neither has an emperor or, as far as I know, dependencies. From what Sharule said, Israel never had dependencies. Is Luxembourg, and every other sovereign state, an empire? I suspect that the OED definition is lacking something, certainly with regards to common usage of the word.

I exhibited the definition of empire to conclude that Israel is not disqualified by the criteria you have set on your personal observation of the game.
I am not stating that Luxembourg or a host of other minor 'empires' should also be included.
Remember I am using your personal observations to make this conclusion, it does not mean that I neccesarily agree with your observations.

Yep, and that was my point. You are claiming that because Israel is a civilisation according to the dictionary definition it should be in the game. I was saying that Firaxis have extra discriminating factors that determine what goes in the game, and I made some suggestions about what these might be, based on my observations of the Civ series.

You stated that my definition of civilization was incorrect and by listing three authorized definitions I have shown that my definition was in fact correct.
That was actually my point.
I am not claiming that just because Israel is a civilization it should be included in the game, however what I am claiming is that according to the definition Israel is a civilization. If you remember, your initial argument was that Israel lacked the essential structure and political continuity to be considerd a civilization, that the people of Israel are only identified by their religion.

If every civilized country was in the game we'd have a choice of hundreds, which is quite a lot of programming for Firaxis.

Point taken, but my argument is not to include every civilization that ever existed, only the ones with historical prominence with respect to their logistical origin.

Yes, your definition agrees with the dictionaries, and my suggestion of the extra things that Firaxis use does not. I did not claim that my definition (based on the game) was the correct definition of civilization; I think that if this is going to be a major issue then they should change the name of the game to 'Political powers'. It doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but it makes more sense to change the name to reflect what they're trying to model than change the whole model to accurately reflect the name.

Actually 'political powers' does have a nice ring to it, I like it. But alas the game name is civilization and it is my personal observation (not factual) that Firaxis primary concern is to model historically prominent civilizations.

No it doesn't define civ. It is part of what the civs in the game are there for. My original point about continuity was solely about mixing ancient and modern Israel. As far as Empires that no longer exist are concerned, the point is that for them to be in the game, one particular empire needs to have been special enough to get in the game on its own merit, without needing support from the achievements of people of the same country at a different era in history.
Egypt and others fulfill this criterion. None of your points about continuity make this a flawed point, so I ignored them. Those empires had continuity; an Israeli empire based on both modern and ancient Israel does not.

Ok, Your argument about political continuity was not only used to make a distinction between ancient and modern Israel, you have also applied political continuity as a criteria with regards to in-game civs.
Just like ancient Egypt we have established that ancient Israel alone can stand on its own merits and special achievements, it meets your criteria of political continuity.
Therefor the criteria of political continuity and special achievement does not exclude ancient Israel from the game thereby rendering your argument flawed.

A definition is implied by making a game called civilization. First I state that I'm deducing their definition from my observations, and, having made this point, I then refer to this definition as the Firaxis definition to avoid confusion between this and the dictionary versions. There is no inconsistency. My observations are fact.

Nice try but their is an inconsistancy when you claim that your personal observations represent the factual Firaxis concept.
It is my observation that Firaxis does rely on the definition of civilization when choosing game civs, however I am not claiming my observation to be a fact.

The conclusions might be untrue, but then that leads to another possibility that Firaxis chose the civs at random. Either way, a complaint that Israel fits the dictionary definition of civilization does not lead to the conclusion that there really ought to be an Israeli civilization actually in the game.

There is no complaint, Israel does fit the definition given in the dictionary without acception. Does this conclude that
israel should be implemented in the game? no of course not. But it does not disqualify Israel from the game either.

My argument is that Israel is a civilization that has maintained historical prominence and if Firaxis is going to include another civilization in the expansion that is derived from the Middle East, then is Israel should be the logical choice.
I am not claiming that Israel is a civilization that rivals Rome, China or Egypt.

The IRA, like all terrorist organisations, is not one we should give in to. They are no different from Hamas in this regard; both would take heart from this weakness. Both groups regard themselves as freedom fighters fighting for a just cause. You have described here how Hamas operates, but not described how you believe the IRA is different.

It is not how either terrorist organizaion operates that makes them different, it is how the world views them. The IRA is considered vile and a pariah to most of the population of Great Brittan and the world. An Islamic terrorist organization like the Hamas is seen as champions of the cause and benevolent to the majority of muslims.
Most of the Islamic world (and even western sympathizers) fully support Islamic terrorist organizations like the Hamas. So it is impossible to combat Islamic terrorists the same way you would the IRA or the Columbian terrorists.
Apparently you did not view the link of the video I provided, take a look at this video if you truly are interested in analysing both side of the subject.

A look at the dishonest media in Palestine
http://seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv

and if you have time

The view of an Arab women living in Lebenon
http://tudorproductions.com/media/Duke_Brigitte_interview.wmv

Maybe. It makes ancient Israel sound more impressive than I had thought, but it'd be nice to see a representative from all the competing ancient nations give an account of why their nation should be included. As you say, there are two sides to every story, and although I'd never seen this one, I'd like to see the other one before deciding. After all, there's limited room in Civ, so it's not about reaching a certain point, but being higher than the rivals. Sharule presents a good case.

How Firaxis judge this can always be called arbitrary, whatever rationale they adopt. Their current system seems perfectly adequate.

Being that I am not an Israeli national nor a Jew, I had hoped you would consider my view as objective.
I am not a zealot champion of zion in fact my feelings toward Israel are ambivalent. If anyting I am a zealot champion of objective thinking.
I am no scholar but I am very familiar with the civilizations and history of the Middle East, and it is my opinion that Israel above the other civilizations in that region should be included in the expansion.

 

[Mott1]

P.S. : I'm curios what actually included civ should replace Israel in the game in your opinion Mott1 ?

I don't think any civ should be replaced, I just think Israel should be included in the expansion.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My argument is that Israel is a civilization that has maintained historical prominence and if Firaxis is going to include another civilization in the expansion that is derived from the Middle East, then is Israel should be the logical choice.I am no scholar but I am very familiar with the civilizations and history of the Middle East, and it is my opinion that Israel above the other civilizations in that region should be included in the expansion.

You mean above the Babylonians(or some Mesopotamian representative) or the Turks?

I agree that Israel would probably be the Middle East Civ I'd put After those two, but they should definitely come first. (the Turks controlled a Massive empire in the region, and the Mesopotamians are...well the 'First Civilization' in contention with India and China at least. And even they controlled bigger empires than Israel ever did.) Israel contributed key ideas to civilization, but they did not have significant historical impact except as a part of a major power until modern times.

 

[Volum]

Its about money and geographical balance. Firaxis wants to make money, so they spread their civs around the Globe. Most buyers are from Western Europe and the USA, so theres where theres most Civ's. Theres a harcoded maximum limmit of Civ's, so Firaxis has to think long and hard on who to put in the game.

The middle east has had many succesfull and powerfull empires, and IMHO there are Civ's that deserve to be in the game before Israel. And if you look at the world there are plenty of nations and empires that deserve to be in the game before Israel, and that probably pushes it down on Firaxis list.

And you cant get arond one thing, the whole Israel thing is controversial. Most people have an opinion on the matter and thats probably why Firaxis is avoiding it, they want to please as many people as possible, so theyl buy the game.

My guess is that Israel is pretty far down on Firaxis list, and will not be seen in cIV. They might some day add a something like the Hebrews as a Civ, but i cannot picture them adding Israel in the near future.

 

[gianluca790]

IMHO the only real difference ( and not the ones created by media/artificially induced to peoples ) is in purpose of the two organisation. IRA would probably give up the figth after eliberating/reconquest Northen Ireland and would not proceed until they "drop off entire english people on sea" while Hamas have a clear and definite purpose to complete eliminate Israel as state/political entity and so on ...

You don't think that there are certain fundamentalist Catholic fanatics in Ireland who are just as rabidly against Protestant England as an imperialistic political entity of oppression in the same way as the architects of the Palestinian Intifada, the Al-Aqsa Brigades and the craven cowards of the Islamic Jihad are against Israel? It is not just Arab Nationalsocialist and Islamic Fundamentalist groups such as Hamas who are against Israel, but Christian Fundamentalist groups such as the White Aryan Nations in the USA and Neo-Nazis in Europe as well.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

You don't think that there are certain fundamentalist Catholic fanatics in Ireland who are just as rabidly against Protestant England as an imperialistic political entity of oppression in the same way as the architects of the Palestinian Intifada, the Al-Aqsa Brigades and the craven cowards of the Islamic Jihad are against Israel ?

Probably yes - but here we talk about whole organizations against some minor factions.

It is not just Arab Nationalsocialist and Islamic Fundamentalist groups such as Hamas who are against Israel, but Christian Fundamentalist groups such as the White Aryan Nations in the USA and Neo-Nazis in Europe as well.

Fortunately such "movements" are some marginal groups of losers - while both Hamas and IRA have/had the support of a large part of palestinians/irelands population.