Southern Israelis Live in Fear of Missiles

About 1,600 missiles have rained down on Israel in 2012, making it a very common thing for the people in the southern section to run for bomb shelters. Though most of them have come in November, hundreds came in the previous months. It has become a way of life, for Israelis -- a way of life that would  be tolerated by how many other nations? Perhaps as much as 1 in 5 Israelis lives in daily fear of the missile attacks. I do not know if Israel responded to any of the missiles until just this past week. That is a notable thing, a lot of tolerance and turning of the other cheek.

"I don't know any country that would show restraint for as long as Israel did during the attacks on the south," said Israeli President Shimon Perez a few days ago.


http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-11-17/news/fl-readers-view-hamas-israel-20121117_1_rocket-and-mortar-fire-rocket-attacks-hamas

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisrael-11.html

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/letters/2012/11/19/361407/Rockets-bomb.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012

Current Conflict First Since Two Allies Became Enemies

Significant, this: The current Israeli-Gaza conflict is the first since the Arab Spring brought an Egyptian government hostile to Israel. Also, it is perhaps the first notable military conflict in Israel since Turkey left off being an ally. (Both Egypt and Turkey have now become financial backers of Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip.) 

Israel is more on its own in the region than it has been in a long time, and, so, we think of the scripture saying that in the last days, Jerusalem would be "a cup of trembling unto all the people round about," and that all who burdened themselves with Jerusalem would "be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it," and that the rulers of Judah would "devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left." (Zechariah 12:3-6)

Also of note, as we discuss the current Israel-Gaza conflict, there is debate as to who started it. The link below to a PBS segment suggests Hamas had long been firing missiles at Israel, but recently had ratcheted up the shelling to the point that the Israelis took cover in bomb shelters. So, understandably, the Israelis finally said enough is enough and fired back. My understanding is that Hamas missiles historically were ineffective, but recently had become more sophisticated. Was Israel justified? Surely it was justified in doing at least something, even if you do not allow it should have assassinated a Hamas military commander. If one million Americans were sent scurrying to a bomb shelter to avoid a missile shelling, we as a nation -- same as Israel did -- would be screaming for something to be done. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/israel2_11-16.html

Our Eyes Cast to Israel, and to Gaza

Our eyes cast to Israel, and to Gaza, and to rockets flying both ways. I hear that for the first time in 40 years, Jerusalem is targeted by the missiles. In the past, fear of hitting Muslim shrines and Arab neighborhoods has deterred enemies from firing upon the Holy City.

And, word comes that missiles are being fired out of Egypt, perhaps marking the inevitable turn of that country's military against Israel following the change in government there. Does it portend more from Egypt? Will Israel respond to the missiles launched from Egyptian soil? We can only wait and see. The Egyptian prime minister did visit Gaza earlier in the day, to express solidarity with Hamas. 

Israel has grown to become one of the world's greatest nations. I'm told it has more high-tech start ups per capita, as  measured by patents, than any nation on earth. I'm told it has more companies listed on NASDEQ than any nation save the U.S. and China. It has become the nation prophesied of in the Old Testament. I think of the prophecies of it standing against its neighbors in the last days, and watch.

The Parallels of the Unborn and the Immigrant

The unborn and the immigrant, I say, have a lot in common. One is told he is not welcome on earth, and the other is told he is not welcome on this part of earth. Both are told they have no rights. Both are treated as invaders, the unborn invading the mother's body and the immigrant invading this country. Both are inconveniences to other people. Both are considered parasites. One we say is not viable, since it could not live on its own outside the mother's womb. The other we call illegal for living outside its home country. One is not allowed to be called a citizen. And, the other is not allowed to be called a person. One just wants to come to earth and be part of a family. The other often wants no more than to join family already here. One is told he would be an economic burden on parents already living on earth. And, the other is told he would be an economic burden on the people already in America.

I say, let them both come. Welcome them both. Let the unborn come to live on earth and let the immigrant come to live in America.

Obama to Sit Down with Romney?

   A favorite part of President Obama's press conference today, for me, was his saying he wanted to sit down with Mitt Romney and get some advice.
   "There are certain aspects of Governor Romney's record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful," the president said. ". . . There are a lot of ideas that I don't think are partisan ideas but are just smart ideas. . . . I'm not either prejudging what he's interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I've got some specific assignment. But I -- what I want to do is to -- is to get ideas from him and see if -- see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together."
   Wouldn't mind it if that working together meant Romney would be the secretary of labor, or commerce, but Obama did say he was not suggesting some specific assignment. The significant thing to me, though, about what Obama's comments is that he was reaching out to the opponent he just defeated for advice, which seems to be a very magnanimous offer. His willingness to reach across the aisle, to take advice from a foe, to  find solutions wherever they can be found, seems to indicate high moral character in our president. 

George Advises Me on How to Elect a President

  "Hello, George? George Washington?"
  "Yes, this is George."
  "George, this is John -- John Jackson. I'm calling you from 2012. How's everything doing back there in 1789?"
  "Oh, real good. You know I was just elected president, don't you."
  "Oh, yeah? Well, that sure is kind of neat. We just had an election of our own, you know."
  "You did?"
  "Yeah. Actually, that's why I'm calling. I'm wondering if you think we're doing it any differently now."
  "You still have the Electoral College, don't you?"
  "Yes."
  "Well, then you're still doing it the same. That's how we set it up."
  "Yes. George, I was wondering how many popular votes you just got, in your election."
  "Oh? Well, I don't know that I got any at all. That's not the way we set it up, you know."
  "Yeah, I see, and I know the Electoral College votes are the only ones that count, but, I was just wondering how many popular votes you got."
  "Oh, John, Could you be so serious? Some states didn't have a popular vote, at all. All the states were allowed to elect their members to the Electoral College in the manner they saw fit. In some, the state legislatures elected the delegates. Now, there were six states that let the citizens pick the Electoral College delegates, and the delegates who voted for me did receive a total of 38,818 votes."
  "So, you received 38,818 votes?"
  "Well, no, at least I don't think so. That would depend whether it was my name on the ballot, or whether it was the delegates' names on the ballot. Tell me, how are you doing it up there in your day, up there in 2012?"
  "The presidential candidates names are on the ballot."
  "Not the delegates' names?"
  "No. We don't even know who the delegates are. It's not like the day after the election the newspapers are screaming, 'Jumian James Wins Spot on Electoral College.' "
  "No?"
  "No."
  "Well, then, what do you think of the republican form of government?"
  "George, you're asking me?"
  "Well, yes. We set it up that way. So I'm just wondering what became of it."
  "Well, actually, we've still got it. We still have the Electoral College."
  "I see. But you don't even vote for the electors, but just for the presidential candidates themselves?"
  "Yes."
  "And, you don't even know the names of the electors before you vote for them."
  "No. I guess not."
  "And their names are not even on the ballot?"
  "Well, no."
  "And once the election is all said and done, no one even knows the names of the people they've elected?"
  "Guess not."
  "They don't even care. It doesn't even matter?"
  "Not to me, it doesn't."
  "Well, John, I must be going. I've got a call coming in from 2032. I'm hoping it has better news."
  "Wait! George, before you go! Please tell me if you think we're doing it right."
  "John, I'm sorry, but we set it up so the Electoral College members were to be trusted with a very important task. And to these people you give no thought at all as to who you are electing. Did you say you don't even know their names?"
  "Yeah. We don't even know who we're electing."
  "No?"
  "It's really of no concern."
  "No?"
  "No. Not at all. As long as we've got a warm body to vote for our Republican or Democrat, what more could we ask for?
  George didn't answer.
  "You wanted us, maybe, to make this Electoral College into something more substantive?"
  "John," George said in exasperation, "do you even know what a republican form of government is?"
  I put George on hold and scurried off to find my dictionary. Hurrying back, I said, "George? Yes, I've got it right here. It says, 'A state in which the power is vested in the people and is exercised by governing officials chosen either directly or indirectly by them.' "
  "Yes. Thank you."
  "But, since it says, 'either directly or indirectly,' that means we can elect the president directly. But, we don't. The Electoral College hasn't gone anywhere since you set it up."
  "No?"
  "No."
  "Well, John, I must disagree. Your Electoral College is not performing a republican function at all. It's simply stamping approval on the popular vote after the count is slightly altered. Your Electoral College does not deliberate, does not debate nor discuss, and does not weigh the matter of who the president shall be, at all. What is that expression you have up in your day? Your Electoral College might as well be programmed by a computer, for all the effort it gives to this matter. Why do you even still have one?"
  "What do you mean? I thought you'd be glad to hear we still had it?"
  "But why have it, if you are not going to use it?"
  "Well, we kind of, sort of do."
  "John, if electing an elector is to mean anything at all, they've got to bring something to the table. Maybe you could elect people you thought had wisdom."
  "Why ever would we want to do that? We can just vote on them because they are Republicans or Democrats. That's all that matters. We've broken the system down to where its a lot simpler."
  "Broken it down, is right. You've done just a wonderful job of breaking it."
  "George, if you were alive today, which party would you belong to?"
  "Neither. I am not a member of a party today, so why would I join one if I were alive in your day?"
  "I see. Well, to us, parties mean everything. We don't need to elect smart delegates because the only thing that matters is if they are Republican or Democrat. We don't need to know their names. We don't need to know who they are. We don't need to talk to them. Nothing. All we need to know is whether they are Republicans or Democrats."
  "Well, John, I'm going to go ahead and take this call from 2032. Maybe he'll feel a little different. I sure hope so. It would be neat to see if the way we set things up meant something to those of you in the future."
  "Oh, George. You're our hero. What you've set up for us does mean something to us."
  "Yes?"
   "Yes!"
   "Then, just try it the way we set it up. That's all I would ask."
  "George, we just thought the only reason you set up the Electoral College was to give the smaller states a little help. Since the delegates equal the number of senators and representatives, that means a portion (two electoral delegates) are there regardless the size of the state."
   "Thanks, John. And, you're right, that is a good thing. But make the delegates mean something. If we had meant just to even up things for the small states, we could have just weighted the votes and made them automatic. We didn't need to set it up with actual people to do the voting in the Electoral College."
  "I guess I see what you mean. You have been pretty persuasive."
  "Just try this, John, please. Put aside the bit about electing people who will vote automatically based on party. Just see if you can make the republican principle work. You might like it. You might find it to be quite a nice thing. Have your Electoral College delegates actually do something, mean something, and put some actual thought into who they will vote for for president."
  "Yes, George, I guess I don't have but a sliver of a whisper of a voice in what America does -- if even that -- but it does seem you might be right. I do wish we would do it the way you are suggesting."
  "Well, thanks for calling, John. You can't read our minds all those years later, to know what we were trying to do. But, it sure seems, if we set it up this way, with delegates to do the electing, then it might we worth a little something."
  He then hung up, and I was left to wonder how his call was going with 2032.

Tidbits from Presidential Election HIstory

Tidbits of extreme interest, I say, from the history of presidential campaigns:

1. The first presidential debate between candidates in the general election was not held until 1960, when John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon squared off.

2. It once may have been considered improper for candidates to actively campaign on their own behalf. Can this be?

3. Has ever an election in the U.S. been fraught with so much fraud as to give reason to think the fraud changed the outcome? Possibly. Samuel J. Tilden's loss to Rutherford B. Hayes raises that concern. Could this happen in the U.S., of all places?

4.. We all know the Electoral College vote counts, not the popular vote. How about this, though: No national popular vote was even recorded until 1824.

.