Yesterday was election day in Israel. Which means that by today, most of the results should be tallied and we should have a pretty accurate idea of who will be the new prime minister, right? Well, maybe not.
Before I elaborate any further, I wish to make it known that I make no claim to any great knowledge of Israeli politics. However, a couple people have asked, so I will attempt to explain the little that I've learned in the last couple weeks. (If you have any further questions, you're on your own, but maybe this will help you know where to start looking.)
First of all, when you vote in Israel, you don't vote for a person. You vote for a party. There were somewhere around 30 different political parties vying for votes in this most recent election. While the main ones would probably seem fairly "normal" to us (right, left, stances on the economy, and Gaza being sort of main points of discussion) they range to the utterly bizarre (Holocaust survivors in favor of legalizing marijuana). Each party gets a certain number of seats in the Knesset (120 seats total), depending on what percentage of the vote they get. To get any seats, they have to get at least 2% of the vote. Other than that, if your party gets, say, 20% of the popular vote (which could be enough for that party to "win" the election), then you get 24 of the seats (or possibly more-to make up for the parties getting 1% and no seats), to be filled with the top members of the party. No one party ever wins a majority. The prime minister usually (or maybe always thus far) comes from the party that received the largest percent of the popular vote. He or she then has to form a coalition government. (Obviously, if only 20 percent of the legislative branch agrees with the prime minister, not much will get done. So they make deals and apparently "recruit" other parties to agree with them. They need at least 61 seats in the Knesset to form a coalition government. When the coalition falls apart, they hold new elections.)
This time the two main parties in the running were Likud, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, and
Kadima, headed by Tzipi Livni. The Likud party had been leading in the polls, with an ever decreasing margin over the last couple weeks. As of yesterday, however, it appears that Kadima actually won a slightly larger percentage of the popular vote, giving them one more seat. (Though apparently this won't be totally certain for another week or two). Does this mean that Livni will be Prime Minister? Well, maybe.
The thing is, first of all, it's a very narrow win. That gives them less bargaining power with the other parties. Second, Livni already tried and failed to form a coalition government this fall after Ehud Olmert stepped down. There are various other reasons too, but suffice it to say that Netanyahu still has a shot at being Prime Minister.
Whether this is good or bad, and what all this will mean for Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, well, only time will tell for sure. I'm sure analysts are attempting to predict what might happen, but I will not.
Fortunately, as I was reminded in our own elections, our hope is not built on who our president or prime minister is. Our hope is in the God who created the universe and who is still in control of it. Our hope is in the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son. Our citizenship isn't really here - it's in Heaven. So as you pray for America, please pray for Israel too. And then remember to trust the God who establishes and removes rulers.
7 comments:
Hi Alana,
I've just seen your response to my last posting, and I must admit I though you'd forgotten me. So it came as a nice surprise to find that you are going to let me have answers to at least some of my questions. Please don't worry about taking time to format them, I do understand that you must be very busy, it being a new term etc.
Also I was interested to read your posting on the Israeli election results (I'm afraid I tend to turn the TV off when middle east news comes), although I must admit after 60 odd years of troubles I don't think it will make a whole lot of difference which ever party wins. As for deciding the rights and wrongs of the situation I'm very glad I it's not me who has to do that.
Anyway keep well and I look forward to hearing from you when you get time to respond.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Hi Alana,
Just another quick one, you say:
'And then remember to trust the God who establishes and removes rulers.'
I say:
Hold on a minute I thought the whole idea of freewill was that God was suppose to let us decide and not interfere. Now I must admit I don't really believe in a personal God of any sort, but if I did I certainly wouldn't lay the worlds troubles on him or her.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
No, I haven't forgotten...I'm just slow. Sorry!
As far as your second comment goes, I'm not at all blaming God for the troubles of the world, but I am giving Him credit for what He claims for himself in the Bible.
Romans 13:1
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is not authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
You might argue that just because the Bible says it doesn't make it true of God. I would reply that the Bible claims to be the Word of God and I believe it. Therefore, I will make my arguments based on the Bible. I could further defend my reasoning in doing so, but I don't have the time or energy to thing through and respond to all possible objections right now. :)
Hi Alana,
Firstly can I start by saying that in replying to your posting I do not mean to be rude in any way, and I hope you won't take offence if I reply frankly.
Nothing you say makes any sense what so ever, the argument that God exists because it say so in the Bible, then using quotes from it to prove your original supposition is not a legitimate justification of your position. How people can see blind faith (without any reasonable proof) as a badge of honour is totally beyond me.
Before resorting to the Bible for your proof of Gods existent, I'd ask you take a look at that documentary I recommended:
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v171338519z8pfNYe?autoWatch=true
(It's from The Canadian Broadcasting Service and seems to be well researched)
As for your comment about my not accepting your answers, so why should you try? Since when has it been legitimate to take the stance that: unless you agree to accept my answers in advance I won't discuss it?
Anyway Alana please don't take my comments as being anything other than an attempt to understand how, otherwise seemingly reasonable people can believe something that there's not a scrap of real evidence for. The only rational explanation I can postulate is something Americans call 'Group Think', in English it's known as the King's New clothes syndrome'. People think that if everyone else seems to believe something is true then it must be true, and convince themselves it is. Saying I have faith and I will believe it's true without any evidence, simply isn't rational regardless of how many others may take the same stance.
Keep well.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Hmm…I think perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Allow me attempt to re-state it in a different way in an attempt to clarify.
You took issue previously with my statement assigning responsibility for the establishment of governments to God. Perhaps I could better respond to that by saying:
“IF God exists (as I believe He does) and IF the Bible represents Him accurately (as I believe it does) THEN I can say that he is responsible for the governments that exist because the Bible said it first, in Romans 13:1. In other words, I’m not saying it just because I want it to be true, but because a source that I trust tells me that it’s true. You can, however, feel free to disagree with either or both of those premises.”
I will freely admit that my argument in now way proves the existence of God, nor was such my intention. I do not think that “proof” of God’s existence is really possible, at least not in the way we think of “proof” in our empirical society.
That is not to say that my faith is blind. I may lack proof, but I do have evidence. For that matter, I lack “proof” that I have a brain – I’ve never seen it, smelled it, touched it, etc. I don’t really have empirical evidence for it. But I assume that I have one because my body functions and I am able to type this sentence. In addition, I am a human, and we have yet to open the skull of any human and find no brain. So I can be pretty certain that I have one. In a similar way, I would argue that there is evidence of God, and the Bible is only one of those bits of evidence.
In regards to that, I did indeed watch that documentary (though it was a while ago now, so please forgive me if my memory is a bit foggy). I thought it was interesting, but not all that convincing, or life-changing. There are stories similar to the Christian story throughout most (or at least many) of the cultures of the world. While it is interesting and could mean something, I am not convinced that it has to mean anything, or that his interpretation of the meaning (that the story of Jesus originated in Egypt?) is the correct one. You may also remember that there were a few people on the show who thought this idea was ridiculous and not even backed up by Egyptian evidence. They may have been wrong, but they were no less believable than the main author (who’s name I don’t recall at the moment). In the end, though he had an interesting perspective, he has a whole lot of questions that must be answered before his idea can be considered to be a decent scholarly theory.
As for your comment about my not accepting your answers, so why should you try? Since when has it been legitimate to take the stance that: unless you agree to accept my answers in advance I won't discuss it?
I’m afraid I don’t see where I said that? Obviously I am willing to answer, and you are free to disagree. =) At some point, if we cannot accept each others basic premises from which we are arguing, then it can be very difficult to discuss something. In addition, I think that some of the thing that we have been discussing can be discussed forever without anyone being convinced of anything, and so perhaps at some point such discussions are lacking in purpose. Perhaps you would disagree, though. In my case, I argue for what I believe is true because I love my Savior and I want others to come to know Him. However, arguing rarely, if ever, wins people to Christ. I cannot prove Him, but I can tell you how He has changed my life.
Dear Alana,
Can I thank you for your most courteous and quick response to my last posting. I'm sure there's far more exciting things to do in Israel than respond to people on the web, so it is very much appreciated.
As for that reply itself I don't see that you've addressed my main question, which was: how can you possibly believe that the Bible is the word of God, when the only evidence (if that's the right word) for that belief is the Bible itself. Why do you believe that book, but not: the Koran, or the holy writings of Hinduism, the book of Mormons, Scientology etc. They all say this is the true word of God. Had you have been born in Japan you would probably be a believer in Shinto, or if you had been born 2000 years ago in England you'd have been a pagan. What makes the writings in the Bible true and all the rest false? Now I know you say you can tell me how a belief in Jesus has changed your life, but all the people who believe in theses other religions would say exactly the same wouldn't they?
The New Testament is not a stand alone document, and is most definitely a continuation of the Old Testament. So if the New Testament is the word of God the same must be true of the Original. Therefore God has commanded me to stone the following people: homosexuals, delinquent daughters, anyone who works on a Sunday etc. Now if I'm to believe in God as the rightful ruler of our universe, surely I must obey him/her and start stoning people. OK I'd agree that there is less of this type of nonsense in the New Testament, although even in there there's still quite a lot of it.
Just one last point here, what part can prayer possibly play in our lives? If God is all-knowing he doesn't need people to bring things to his attention, and if he's perfect he doesn't need our advice. So what exactly is the point of prayer?
Anyway I guess I should leave it there for now, although I do have many other questions I think you might like to address. Please don't feel obliged to answer straight away as I know you busy, but I would be interested in your answers.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
PS.
I'm leaving original sin alone for now, that idea really is nonsense now isn't it?
Post a Comment