Friday, September 30, 2011

BREAKING: Major longitudinal (across-time) study showing spiritually motivated changes in sexual orientation

A September 26, 2011 press release, below, documents breakthrough long-term results on changes in sexual orientation; as published in the Journal, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Volume 37, pages 404-427.  [More detailed report on the study, here.] (HT: PT of ADF.)

Of course on such a politically incorrect result in such a contentious field, there are many objections etc. You may wish to look here for responses to common objections, in the site for the study. (In addition, the notes here -- warning, some pretty rough stuff! -- and online book here will prove helpful in assessing wider implications and issues.)

Press Release [re-paragraphed for ease of reading]:


>>Press Release; September 26, 2011
Groundbreaking Research on Sexual Orientation Change
Published in Respected Scientific Journal

Academic Citation:

Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse. (2011). “A longitudinal study of attempted religiously-mediated sexual orientation change.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Volume 37, pages 404-427.

For more details, information about the authors, and responses to criticisms, go to

A chorus of voices in the professional world today proclaims that it is impossible to change sexual orientation, particularly homosexual orientation, and that the attempt to change sexual orientation is commonly and inherently harmful. 

For example, for many years the Public Affairs website of the American Psychological Association stated: “Can therapy change sexual orientation? No. . . . [H]omosexuality . . . does not require treatment and is not changeable.”[1]  Regarding harm, the American Psychiatric Association’s statement that the “potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior”[2] is often cited.

Psychologists Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College (IL) and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University have just published in The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal, the final results of their longitudinal study of a sample of men and women seeking religiously-mediated sexual orientation change through involvement in a variety of Christian ministries affiliated with Exodus International. The results stand in tension with the supposed professional consensus.

This study meets high standards of empirical rigor. In other studies, in the words of the APA, “treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.”[3]  Prior research has been appropriately criticized for

  • Failing to follow subjects over time (i.e., not longitudinal)
  • Relying on memory rather than following change as it occurs (i.e., not prospective)
  • Relying on therapist ratings rather than hearing directly from those seeking change
  • Using idiosyncratic and unvalidated measures of sexual orientation

The Jones and Yarhouse study was designed to address these empirical standards.  The study is a longitudinal and prospective quasi-experimental study of a respectably large sample of persons seeking to change their sexual orientation via religiously-mediated means through Exodus ministries groups.  

Among those endorsing the earlier book[4] describing the study and its results at the 3-year mark was Former President of the American Psychological Association Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D., who stated 
Research in the controversial area of homosexuality is fraught with ideology and plagued by a dearth of science. This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation…. I have waited over thirty years for this refreshing, penetrating study of an imperative, though controversial human condition. This book is must reading for psychotherapists and counselors, as well as academic psychologists studying human behavior and sexuality.

This study assessed the sexual orientations and psychological distress levels of 98 individuals seeking sexual orientation change beginning early in the change process, and then followed them longitudinally with five additional independent assessments over a total span of 6 to 7 years. The researchers used standardized, respected measures of sexual orientation and of emotional distress to test the study’s hypotheses. 

This new report extends out to between 6-7 years the findings previously reported at the 3-year mark for the subjects in the study. 

An earlier version of these results were presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association on August 9, 2009; that two former presidents of the APA, Dr. Nicholas Cummings and Dr. Frank Farley, discussed the findings in that presentation underscores the significance of the study.

The findings in brief:  Of the original 98 subjects (72 men, 26 women), 61 subjects completed the key measures of sexual orientation and psychological distress at the conclusion of the study, and were successfully categorized for general outcome. Of these 61 subjects, 53% were categorized as successful outcomes by the standards of Exodus Ministries. 

Specifically, 23% of the subjects reported success in the form of successful “conversion” to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while an additional 30% reported stable behavioral chastity with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation. On the other hand, 20% of the subjects reported giving up on the change process and fully embracing gay identity. 

On the measures of sexual orientation, statistically significant changes on average were reported across the entire sample for decreases in homosexual orientation; some statistically significant change, but of smaller magnitude, was reported in increase of heterosexual attraction. These changes were less substantial and generally statistically non-significant for the average changes of those subjects assessed earliest in the change process, though some of these subjects still figured as “Success: Conversion” cases.

The measure of psychological distress did not, on average, reflect increases in psychological distress associated with the attempt to change orientation; indeed, several small significant improvements in reported average psychological distress were associated with the interventions.

In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some. 

The results do not prove that no one is harmed by the attempt to change, but rather that the attempt to change does not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful. 

Several cautions are noted in the research report:  The authors urge caution in projecting success rates from these findings; the figures of 23% successful conversion to heterosexual orientation and 30% to successful chastity are likely overly optimistic projections of anticipated success for persons newly entering Exodus-related groups seeking change. Further, it was clear that “conversion” to heterosexual adaptation was a complex phenomenon; the authors explore a variety of possible explanations of the findings including religious healing and sexual identity change. 

Nevertheless, these findings challenge the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change of sexual orientation is impossible or very uncommon, and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an effort.

 In their 2007 book, Ex-Gays? (IVP), Jones and Yarhouse discussed the implications of the findings of this study, and those implications are still worthy of consideration. Most importantly, the study suggests that since change seems possible for some, then all should respect the integrity and autonomy of persons seeking to change their sexual orientation for moral, religious, or other reasons, just as we respect those who for similar reasons desire to affirm and embrace their sexual orientation.  

This requires that space be created in religious and professional circles for individuals to seek sexual orientation change or sexual identity change with full information offered about the options and their potential risks.  We would do well to put as much information as possible in the hands of consumers so that they are able to make informed decisions and wise choices among treatment options.  

The results also suggest that it would be premature for professional mental health organizations to invalidate efforts to change sexual orientation and unwanted same-sex erotic attractions.

More information can be found at  Representatives of the media seeking to schedule an interview with either author should contact Dr. Stanton L. Jones via LaTonya Taylor, Director of Media Relations, Wheaton College (email or call 630-752-5015) and Dr. Mark Yarhouse via Mindy L. Hughes, Director of Public Relations, Regent University (email or call 757-352-4095).

[1] American Psychological Association (2005). “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” Retrieved April 4, 2005, from  This statement was removed some time after 2007.
[2] American Psychiatric Association (1998). “Psychiatric treatment and sexual orientation position statement.” Retrieved from
[3] American Psychological Association (2005); ibid.
[4] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse (2007). Ex-gays?  A longitudinal study of religiously-mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.>>

Boiling down, morally/spiritually driven efforts to change sexual orientation have significant, scientifically documented chances of success (as has been known since the days of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, 6:9 - 11, c. 57 AD); regardless of the many talking points and outright scare-mongering and demonisation to the contrary.  It is worth citing that classic report:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Amplified Bible (AMP)
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
    10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
    11And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.
 So, now, "whose report do we believe . . ." and, why?

Going further, this is highly significant regarding the push to embed "sexual orientation" as a constitutionally protected right. For, if sexual orientation is changeable, it is plainly significantly a matter of choice and effort in life. 

That is, it is a morally freighted matter. 

One properly subject to moral government at personal, familial and community level, and also properly subject to regulation by the state in the interests of the community, through law.

It is not an innate and unchangeable, genetically DETERMINED identity and charactersistic that is to be recognised, accepted and approved (even in law), censuring those who object; rather than a habitual pattern of behaviour that some may develop (perhaps due to unfortunate influences and responses in early life, of various sorts . . . ), and which is subject to management, regulation in the interests of the community, and even change -- all, based on the well-warranted conclusion that it is inherently disordered, unnatural, significantly subject to choice and moral suasion, unhealthy, and damaging to family life and to the wider community. 

And so, the moral call that has long gone out that sexual behaviour must be regulated in light of Creation Order mandates for sexuality, marriage, family and community, still stands.

This, whatever the fashionable views of the day may think otherwise. (In this regard, it is important to read the ebook here, for a broader view.) END

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Pause for beauty -- the butterfly and what it tells us about our world

We have had a pretty intense couple of weeks here at the KF blog. 

(BTW, take a look at some new features in the RH column. For instance, do you like the key commodities price tracker?)

Let's pause for beauty and look at the following visually lush and provocative Ilustra Media trailer for their new DVD, Metamorphosis:

Well worth the five minutes to see it!

Thought-provoking, too, and it would be well worth the time to register with DI and download the companion book, here.

(You might then want to take a look at the discussion here on, in an online course on the hot issue of design theory.)

A feast for the eyes, and food for thought. END

PS: Bullfrogs and Butterflies is a wonderful song to listen to after seeing the video. (This in-studio informal rendition tells the story of the song.)

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Matt 24 Watch, 140: As the new Montserrat Constitution Order (2010) comes into effect, yet another UK case of homosexualisation of law, law enforcement, and anti-Christian bigotry surfaces

In recent months this blog has noted on the Bull and Johns cases of homosexualisation of law and courts in the UK, whereby a bed and breakfast was fined and a successful foster parenting couple were barred from further foster parenting through the legal impact of radical homosexualist activism.

Watchword DVD --
banned in Lancashire, UK!
Sadly, as a UK case just this past weekend -- coming days before a new controversial Constitution Order goes into effect in Montserrat -- underscores, such matters are now not irrelevant to us in the Caribbean. 

In summary, a Christian Coffee Shop in Lancashire, UK,  was just threatened with prosecution for the thought crime of playing a DVD of the New Testament, which homosexualists seem to find to be inherently offensive. 

(One wonders why?)

For, the serious issues and questionable agendas connected to such cases are pounding on our own shores like surges from the de-Christianising tidal wave from the North: 

The two tidal waves hitting our region demand a sound and informed response
(Cf, here, here, here, and here [Wave I] as well as here, here and here etc. [Wave II].)
For instance, in recent months there has been a strong and insistent push to homosexualise the proposed Bill of Rights for the Jamaican Constitution, and here in Montserrat, TODAY, a new UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO] pushed Constitution Order in Council (2010) comes into effect. 

In that newly imposed law, we may read as follows, in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights:
 Protection from discrimination
16.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect . . . . 
(3) In this section, the expression “discriminatory” means affording different treatment to different persons on any ground such as sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
[P. 13 in the just linked, cf. also Section 10, and Section 2. It is arguable that the celebrated "victory" of getting a UK concession that marriage is between a man and a woman, is fatally undermined by the "fair exchange" of inserting sexual orientation as a protected class. For instance, so-called "civil unions," being marriages in all but name, will be possible under the principle of non-discimination. And, this has profound influences beyond the proverbial closed doors of the bedroom: stifling of freedom of conscience and religion, restrictions on freedom of speech, outright censorship of "objectionable" and "offensive"  literature like the Bible (cf. below and here) and signs like the cross, warping of education policy, what is taught to pupils in school as acceptable behaviour, or even as "rights," and more easily come to mind.]
The very order of the examples cites tells us this is an imposition. In a culture and community where the historically dominant challenge has been racist oppression and resulting colour prejudice, those issues have been pushed onto the back-burner. Instead, in pride of place we now see the prioritisation of "sex" and "sexual orientation." 

This -- as was warned of in submissions from the public, but was arrogantly ignored in the rush to push through a dangerously flawed document at least one major revision short of being ready for prime time -- plainly reflects a blatantly alien mindset and radical triumphalism. 

See, we can push through what we want, take that!

In turn, that points to a dangerous radical agenda for law, community order and culture.

But, someone may ask, how can you object to banning prejudice and discrimination against people because of their sex or sexual orientation? 

Surely, we must be tolerant!

There, however, are excellent reasons to be quite concerned on this matter:
 a --> First and foremost, "sexual orientation" is not primarily a legal term of art. Despite the many soothing politically correct assertions one may find on a Google search, it is a psychological term that covers a wide array of possible forms of emotional and sexual attraction, many of which are blatantly pathological or even dangerous. 

b --> It thus can cover not only opposite sex and same sex attractions, but attractions for young boys or girls [the next "orientation" on the agenda that is being pushed to be perceived as "legitimate" and "harmless"], sadism and the like, animals, and worse, stomach-churningly much worse. (On the iconic case, so-called Gay Rights, we may want to read here on -- WARNING, and here on for a breakthrough scientific review of the actual state of the evidence.)

c --> This sort of concern is why in 2009, the Holy See [i.e. the Vatican] warned the UN's notorious Human Rights Council in a submission, as follows; something that the UK must have known about when it pushed through this dangerously flawed term on us here in Montserrat:
The Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.

We would also like to make several observations about the debates regarding “sexual orientation”.

First, there has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term “sexual orientation,” as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the UN human rights system. The confusion is unnecessary because, in international law, a term must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning, unless the document has given it a different meaning.[1] The ordinary meaning of “sexual orientation” refers to feelings and thoughts, not to behaviour.[2]

Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviours must be forbidden by law. Paedophilia and incest are two examples.

Third, the Holy See wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension : it is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity”. In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual orientations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity.  This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience.

And finally, Mr. President, we wish to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted. These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session.[3] The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
d --> No wonder, then, that regional Christian thinker, the Rev Clinton Chisholm, has recently observed:

There is a general belief that conceptual clarity exists re the terms ‘sexual orientation, homosexuality and homophobia’. This belief is dead wrong as I hope to show now.

According to the therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association there are upwards of at least twenty distinctive sexual variations of ‘sexual orientation’. This goes way beyond the traditional orientations of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and bestiality and includes the ‘paraphilias’ like incest, necrophilia, etc. Would all of these more than twenty sexual orientations qualify for protection in our charter of rights [--> i.e. in Jamaica]? And after all what really is sexual orientation, predominant inclination, predominant sexual desire, practice or what?

More importantly because of the seeming fluidity of sexual orientation (people’s sexual appetites can and do change over time) how defensible is it as a protected right within a nation’s charter of rights? The criterion of immutability usually associated with protected rights is not applicable to sexual orientation at all.
e --> Rev Chisholm then puts his finger on a linked term, much loved by advocates and often used as a hammer against their critics, "homophobia": 
What really is homophobia? As a student of languages I find this coinage very weird, etymologically and conceptually. As the word is popularly used it seems to mean at least dislike or disgust for homosexuals. If this is the dominant ethos of the word it is a poor coinage etymologically. Phobia is Greek for fear and the homo part of the word (similarly for homosexual) is not Latin-derived but is drawn from the Greek word homoios, meaning same. Nobody really fears homosexuals but a goodly number of us are repulsed at some of the practices associated with homosexuality.

I know homosexuals for whom I have the profoundest respect as persons and as talented professionals be they lecturers, journalists, musicians, politicians or parsons but I maintain that the act of eating a person’s faeces or showering in a person’s urine, even once, is downright sick, pathological and disgusting. Indeed such practices pose public health challenges.
f --> In short, we here see a highly questionable and patently destructive agenda at work, and using corruption of language -- and of law -- to advance its cause. We must not unwarily traipse into a legal minefield, simply to please those who strongly promote profound changes in the name of "freedom." In that context, let me again underscore the pivotal difference between liberty and license, per the classic 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
LIBERTY: 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind . . . 2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. 3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
LICENSE2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum. [E.g.] License they mean, when they cry liberty.

g --> In that context, on right of fair and free comment: "sexual orientation" is a dangerously vague term that covers a multitude of sexual pathologies that we the peoples of the Caribbean need to protect the community from, instead of enshrining as a Constitutionally protected right. 

h --> We therefore need to ask sharply pointed, even  barbed, questions about (i) why "sexual orientation" was pushed without adequate safeguards, into the list of exemplary classes to be constitutionally protected here in Montserrat, (ii) why it comes so close to the head of that list, and (iii) why submitted concerns on this matter were clearly brushed aside and ignored, not only by the FCO but by the local Government.
Nor are the sorts of concerns raised by the Holy See as cited above, a matter of mere empty alarmism.

In the most recent development, the Murray Restaurant case, we see where (just this weekend) a busybody made a report against a Christian restaurant for the hate-crime of showing Bible verses in public -- yes, showing Bible verses through a DVD connected to a TV -- and the police officers who show up based on the busybody's report threatened prosecution:
The controversy developed over the weekend in Blackpool, England, where police officers told Jamie Murray, the owner of the Salt & Light Coffee House on Layton Road, that displaying "offensive" or "insulting" words was a violation of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The officers warned Murray that if he didn't stop, he could be prosecuted.

Murray had a DVD player connected to a television hanging on the wall that was playing the "Watchword Bible," which potrays the complete New Testament on 12 DVDs.
A woman who had been in the restaurant complained to police. A statement from the Lancashire department said officers were "duty bound" to investigate, and they concluded the business could be in breach of the law. The law warns "people who play images or sounds that stir up hatred again homosexuals could be guilty of an offense," according to a London Daily Mail report . . . . 

"The constabulary is respectful of all religious views. However, we do have a responsibility to make sure that material that communities may find deeply offensive or inflammatory is not being displayed in public," the station told the newspaper . . .  
This last is a blatant, plainly and willfully, mischievously defamatory falsehood. 

The projection of the slander that the Christian Scriptures are inherently hate-speech and/or inherently offensive similar to pornography or obscene matter, is utterly disrespectful and denigratory, indeed it is patently mischievous. And, that mischief is being aggressively promoted by the new atheists and the radical homosexualists, now causing the increasing perception that Christians are a threat to good social order. It has led to at least one pastor being sentenced to gaol in Sweden for the awful crime of preaching from Rom 1 and related scriptures, to the discomfiture of the local homosexualist lobby, and it has led to a public commenter being censored by in effect court order in Canada.

When, the abundant and obvious, undeniable evidence is just the opposite.

Legal action is in train, and the Officers who threatened prosecution could face trouble. 

However, this is not the first time for the Lancashire, UK, police:
[T]he Christian Institute reports that the officers could face another legal battle.
The organization, which is offering advice to the restaurant owner, confirmed that in 2005 the same police department paid compensation of what now would be about $15,000 to Joe and Helen Roberts, a Christian couple investigated by police for telling their local council they didn't agree with homosexuality

"I'd have thought Lancashire constabulary would have learned their lesson after paying out 10,000 [British pounds] to a pair of Christian pensioners who they had interrogated over their views on gay rights," said Mike Judge, a spokesman for the institute. 

"We will be advising Mr. Murray of his legal options. He may well have grounds for a legal action against the police for infringing his rights to free speech and religious liberty," said Sam Webster, the Christian Institute's solicitor-advocate. 

"It ought to go without saying that reading the Bible out loud in a public place, or displaying Bible texts in a Christian café, is not of itself a criminal offense. I am alarmed that I even have to point that out," he continued. "On the face of it, officers of Lancashire Constabulary appear to have said that such behavior may fall within the scope of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. As a lawyer and a Christian, I find that deeply disturbing."
Sadly, given what is now enshrined in the new Montserrat Constitution Order (2010), this case is not irrelevant to us in the Caribbean.

The question, is whether we have the wisdom and courage to demand our right of self-determination, and ensure the correction of such dangerous flaws in the new Montserrat Constitution (and those of other UK overseas territories where similar wordings may have been slipped in).

Welcome to The Brave New Apostate World Order, mein Herr! END

Monday, September 26, 2011

DEVELOPING: Prime Minister Netanyahu on Meet The Press (vs. Mr Abbas as clipped by Palestine Media Watch)

Is a two-state solution viable in the ME?

Video with Mr Netanyahu:

Clips of Mr Abbas on Palestine Media Watch:

We can clearly see the gulf -- addressed yesterday --  that would have to be bridged if a real peace is to become possible. END

Matt 24 Watch, 139: Iran may be six months away from a nuclear weapon

The IslamIST attitude and agenda, per Islamic Thinkers Society
2006 street protest, NY (under the doctrines of fair use and free comment)
Over the past week or so, I have been following up on the unilateral statehood bid by Mr Abbas et al, in the UN. 

Yesterday, I laid out my case -- updated overnight [note the onward links] -- on why I am very pessimistic about the implications of what is going on.

Then, this morning, my attention was drawn to an onward development as reported in The Australian, that underscores the urgency of our concerns:

Iran just months from N-bomb

IRAN may be just six months away from developing a nuclear bomb, despite international attempts to thwart the program through sanctions and cyber attacks.

Two years after an underground installation in the city of Qmo was revealed in a joint press conference by US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and former British prime minister Gordon Brown, Iran has significantly advanced its uranium enrichment program at the site . . . .

"We believe if Iran broke out now they could have a bomb in six months,"
said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who runs the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. "They've done this right in front of our faces."

Iran has ignored four sets of UN Security Council resolutions since 2006 calling on it to cease enriching uranium. With the world's attention diverted by the Arab Spring, Tehran has pressed ahead, overcoming delays caused by Stuxnet, a mysterious computer worm that made centrifuges malfunction.

Greg Jones, a defence analyst at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre, calculates that Iran could now produce a bomb within 62 days
. . . [more]

 Of course, we can bet that -- predictably -- this will NOT be global headline news, followed up by serious, probing panel discussions, then meetings at the UN and calling for urgent international action.

So, when Mr Netanyahu, in his speech at the UN last Friday, asked pointedly about what would be done about a nuclear weapon in the hands of Mr Ahmadinejad, this must have been in the back of his mind.

To predict the likely onward Israeli action, given the patent futility of the diplomatic efforts to date, we simply need to know that Mr Netanyahu's brother, Yonnie, was a leader of the Entebbe raid to rescue Israeli passengers held hostage by Palestinian Arab terrorists with the complicity of Amin's Uganda. 

Jonathan Netanyahu was killed in action in the raid.

The time-bomb now ticking away may be a nuclear one. And while Iran under its current leadership is obviously fully capable of using such a nuke, it could easily hand such over to terrorists, or even just the radiological materials to make a dirty bomb, and back it up with the threat of nuclear destruction.
One thing is certain, such a development will be seen by Israel as an existential threat, and Israel already has in place the submarines, precision-targetted cruise missiles and air force to respond directly. 

Israel, for excellent reason, will act on what we may call the Netanyahu doctrine: 

"Better a bad press than a good eulogy." 

The war storm-clouds are gathering with frightening rapidity. END

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Matt 24 Watch, 138: Some poisonous roots of Middle East bitterness

As those who followed my remarks over the last week or so -- 

cf. here: 01, 2, 3, 4, 5 in light of a short Flash presentation here, timeline here, a synopsis here [cf. here for a view by a Messianic Jewish onlooker and here for audio of Hal Lindsey's astonishing Sept 23, 2011 report], and references here, here, here, here and here (also here) with here, here, here, here and here (cf. here, from p. 21 on) -- 

. . . will know, I am now openly of the view that:
. . . as of Mr Abbas' ill advised diplomatic gambit of Friday last that (absent a miracle; and, let us pray . . . ) we are now on a road to blood and ashes. 
Rivers of blood, and cities worth of ashes.


What poisonous roots of bitterness are driving such utter folly that so predictably -- absent a miracle -- will end in blood?

Part of it is obvious, as we can remind ourselves, yet again, of the Hamas [the Palestinian Arab faction that rules Gaza, which is a branch of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood] covenant, article 7, and how it ends with a citation of Mohammed's infamous Gharqad tree hadith:
. . . The Islamic Resistance [= HAMAS, an Arabic acronym]  Movement aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time that may take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah! [= servant/slave of Allah, a common Muslim name], there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
This is of course, blatant racialist hatred, of cousin for estranged cousin, like the similar, all too commonly heard reference to Jews as descendants of Apes and Pigs.

Such hate predictably leads to blood.

But, there is more. As John Hinderaker of Powerline notes:
Palestinian rejectionism is the fundamental barrier to peace. Let’s cite just one piece of evidence from the inexhaustible stock with which the Palestinians provide us on almost a daily basis. This is from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, on May 27, 2011:
The Zionists must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world, that the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state. That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e., the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land), assuming that it is true, represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification and a coarse and crude form of colonialism.
We can safely take it that this is taken as "gospel" truth by the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs, and that this is what drives much of the feeling in the West that Israel's very existence is dubious.

Yet, it can be easily shown that this is an obvious tissue of poisonous falsehoods. Turnabout, false accusation propaganda based on big lies, in fact. But, when such poisonous lies are repeated endlessly in a loud drumbeat, they often drown out the common-sense corrections that would expose them; and in the polarised atmosphere thereby created, lies are often perceived as truths that justify even desperate measures. Perhaps, that is why it is reported that statistical surveys show that an overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs approve of suicidal terrorist bombings of Israeli civilians. (I have seen numbers as high as 78%.)

Let us therefore take these vicious lies apart, step by step:
The Zionists must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world, that the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land . . . That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e., the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land), assuming that it is true, represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification
  1 --> As Mr Netanyahu pointed out before the UN, the very name, Jew, means one from the region of Judaea; in turn a Latinised form of the name Judah, i.e. the land is named after the leading Southern Tribe of the Israelite nation which derives from one of Jacob's twelve sons, 3800 or so years ago.

2 --> Jewish presence in the land as a native and settled population can be archaeologically documented to 3,000+ years ago -- the time of David and Solomon, and we have no serious reason (apart from selective hyperskepticism) to doubt the traditions that go back another 1,000 years. Here is just one case, that shows the existence of an Ethical Monotheistic Israelite kingdom worshipping The Lord, c. 1,000 BC:

Khirbet Qeiyafa, Israel, Jan 7, 2010: 
Paleo Hebrew inscription c. 1,000 BC

English translation of the deciphered
[Hebrew] text, per Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow]
/ Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant
 / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the
hands of the king [i.e. David or Solomon].
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort
the stranger.
3 --> The Babylonian exile is also archaeologically documented [down to rations for a captive king], as is the resettled population in the time up to the days of Christ. For just one key example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are from this era and show the deep rootedness of Jewish faith, culture and people in the land.

4 --> That first exile is also the root-cause of the Jewish global dispersion; which we can read about as incidental reference after reference, in a source as easily accessible as the New Testament. (Just read the Acts, which are well known on a century of archaeological investigations, to be quite sound as history.)

5 --> Of course in the aftermath of the three uprisings of the Jews against their Roman overlords between 66 and 135 AD [Judaea, Alexandria/Cyrenica and even Mesopotamia, and Judaea again], Jews were in large part exiled from the land. But as soon as they could thereafter, they came trickling back in, and Jews (though often oppressed) were never completely uprooted from the land.

6 --> So, there is nothing to "assume" about the historic Jewish presence in the land. It is a fact, one only denied by those who would usurp the patent legitimacy of the Jewish claim to be rooted in the soil of Eretz Israel. A denial that, sadly, we can see from the Gharqad Tree hadith, is plainly linked to genocidal intent.

7 --> So, since this is the more or less official voice of the Palestinian Authority speaking, it is the Palestinian Authority that "must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world" the patent and irrefutable truth about the history of the Land.
the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state
8 --> This is a poisonous turnabout of the truth, especially the willfully libellous abuse of the term "apartheid." First, the dominant Arab presence in the Land traces to the Arab-Islamic conquest from 635 AD or so. So, while Palestinian Arabs and others who have settled in intervening years -- Ciracassians, Greeks, Iranians [The World Headquarters of the Bahai Faith is in Haifa, Israel, not Iran] and many others -- have some legitimate claims to being of the land, their presence in no way can erase the history we have briefly reviewed.

9 --> Similarly, as Ms Rose and I have surveyed elsewhere:
By the late 1800’s, the geographic region of Western/Cis-Jordanian Palestine was largely ruinate land. From the 1893 Ottoman Census and Vital Cuinet’s independent 1896 Geographical work, Syrie, it also had a relatively light population: ~ 92,000 “Arabs” (including significant numbers of non-Arab Muslims and Christians[23]) in the ~ 8,000 sq. mi. areas that became modern Israel.[24] The rest of Cis-Jordanian Palestine had another 300 – 400,000 “Arabs.” At this time, there were also ~ 60,000 Jews in the area West of the Jordan[25]; who had their own established communities and had recovered Hebrew as their mother-tongue.

The resulting overall situation, circa 1902, has been summed up by Sir William Ramsay, a main founder of the disciplines of Biblical Archaeology and Geography [and an independent, highly qualified witness writing some 20 years after resettlement and rebuilding had begun, seven years before the founding of Tel Aviv, now the largest city in Israel, on coastal sand dunes]:
The scenery, more especially in the central and southern regions, is . . . devoid of the rich beauty of high cultivation and productiveness. The hills as a rule are bald, bare and featureless. The terraces by which in happier times the soil was supported on the slopes have almost everywhere been destroyed, and the soil has been washed down into the hollows, where it impedes the outflow of the waters and produces marshes [NB: malarial]. Thus the land is desolate and unattractive. In general the slopes and hillsides are a wilderness of stones and rocks, where a few scanty shrubs can barely find a hold, and the glens a wilderness of marsh, with a scanty rim of cultivable land above the level of the bare rocks, just sufficient to grow food for the miserable and scanty population. [The Education of Christ. New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing: 1981 (orig. c. 1902), p. 78. Explanatory note on Malaria and italics added.]
This sad spectacle had been created by centuries of misrule, debt- and disease- ridden tenant farming operated by absentee landowners, and a resulting largely landless and migrant peasantry preyed upon by their overlords and semi-nomadic bandits from the deserts to the East.

The transformation to the land we now see was in the main due to the Zionist resettlement from the 1870’s on, whereby Jews bought land that often had largely been dismissed as useless (at highly inflated prices) from the wealthy absentee Effendi landowners -- then restored it to agricultural production. In the process, they injected large quantities of capital and skill, thus creating employment opportunities that attracted waves of Jewish, Arab and other immigrants from the region and globally. This process was then accelerated by the post World War I collapse of the defeated Ottoman Empire; which led to the creation of the League of Nations Mandate Palestine[26] (i.e. the British Mandate), which was intended to promote Jewish immigration without prejudice to the existing Arab population. [Cf. Peters, 2002, pp. 137 – 359.]

Associated with this League Mandate[27], Dr Chaim Weizmann [later, first President of Israel] and Emir Feisal Hussein of the Hejaz (S.W. Arabia) had negotiated a Versailles Treaty side agreement[28] to promote mutually supportive Jewish and Arab nations that would help modernize and develop the region. However, in the Hejaz, the al Husseinis were defeated by the Saudi family; and in Palestine, the aggressive, violently anti-Jewish policy of the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem prevailed. So, by 1926 – 29, Abdullah Hussein had been settled as ruler of the eastern ¾’s of the Mandate in Transjordan (a 38,000 sq, mi. region; from which Jews were banned) and Feisal as King of Iraq. Sadly, violence also swept the land, leading to the massacres of the ancient Jewish populations of Jerusalem and Hebron.

Consequently, over the next twenty years, Jewish immigration was significantly hampered [in the teeth of the rising anti-Semitic tide of Hitler’s Germany] and unofficial Arab immigration was a strongly material demographic trend in the now truncated Mandate Palestine. [Cf. Peters, pp. 196 – 412.[29]] As one result, the Middle East was deprived of the talent and treasure of many of the Jews who subsequently perished in the Nazi death camps. Then also, when the British surrendered the Mandate in the late 1940’s, Transjordan became the nation of Jordan [briefly, “Palestine”] in 1946 and the UN in 1947 proposed a partition of the cis-Jordanian region into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem and environs being an International city.

The Jews accepted, and the Arab League rejected the UN vote; declaring intent to annihilate the Jews. Thus, within 24 hours of Israel’s independence on May 14, 1948, the 600,000 Israeli Jews faced invasion from five Arab armies, some of them much better equipped than the Haganah, the Jewish part-time militia. However, contrary to the expectations of many, Israel survived. As a result of the conflict, there was an exchange of refugee populations: 400 – 600,000 Arabs [under a unique criterion that 2 years of settlement in Palestine qualified one as a refugee], and 620,000 Jews from Arab lands who were resettled in Israel.[30] [An additional 200,000 oriental Jews settled elsewhere in the world.]

The Jewish refugees were welcomed and absorbed by Israel, becoming the largest single sector of the population today. However, the Arab refugees in the main were not similarly accepted by the Arab countries [with the major exception of Jordan], and provided the nucleus for today’s Palestinian refugee population. Three major wars, terrorism and two uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza (and the two Gulf Wars) have dominated the subsequent history . . .
10 --> It is a major wave of investment and resettlement in the face of all odds, driven precisely by love of longed-for homeland in the teeth of all economic and financial good sense, that created the prosperous and fruitful land we know today out of denuded hills, swampy malarial marshes and desertified, ruinate land.

11 --> This investment and settlement then attracted waves of further settlers, Jews who heard that the land was open for return from exile, and Arabs and others seeking economic opportunity.

12 --> Nor is this mere, easily brushed aside speculation; it is a matter of documented, state-paper fact that Feisal Hussein [later, King of Iraq], a leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans under Lawrence of Arabia, in signing the January 1919 London Versailles treaty side agreement between the emergent Jewish and Arab nations [please, pause and read], sought to build mutually supportive nations out of the lands liberated from the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, he asked for the Jews to help with surveys to help identify Arab development prospects.

13 --> So, at most, we have two competing national settlements of a land where both parties have plainly legitimate claims. The reasonable thing to have done, if they could not live together in a common polity, would have been to come to a compromise. That is exactly what happened in 1946 - 48, and the UN partition should have worked, if both sides had been willing.

14 --> That would have averted BOTH populations of Middle East refugees arising from the conflict that we instead had, the Arab one we all hear about regularly, and the LARGER Jewish one that was resolved by the common-sense solution: resettlement in Israel. But, the Arab League and the Palestinian Arabs resorted to war, breathing threats of massacre of the Jews [who had just lost 6 millions to the Nazis . . . ] and inviting Arab residents to leave the intended zone of apocalyptic slaughter -- echoes of the Gharqad Tree hadith are palpable! -- for a little while until the Jews were wiped out or exiled. Of course, the Jews, against all odds, prevailed and won their independence at a stiff price in blood.

15 --> Then, on an openly declared intent to create a running sore and cause for wars against he Jews, the Arabs refused to allow a general resettlement of the Arab refugees. This has now been brought to an absurd situation where the Palestinian Arab state's ambassador to Lebanon has declared that the refugees from not only the 132 countries around the world, but also those in the West Bank etc. -- 45% of the population, will not be permitted to become citizens of the Palestinian Arab state they envision.

16 --> So, we are obviously back to the Gharqad tree hadith attitude: murderous, genocidal hatred to be sustained until mass murder can be carried out. Thus, we come tothe last two key lies:

the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state. That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e., the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land), assuming that it is true, represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification and a coarse and crude form of colonialism.
17 --> If you did not know the truth, you would not realise from this assertion that the 20% of Israeli Citizens who are Arabs, have full rights [a better condition than ANY other Arab population in the Middle East], and have sat in the parliament, in the Cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Only, they are not subject to conscription into the army, except for the Druze and the Ciracassians, who volunteered to be conscripted. Many Bedouin also serve on a voluntary basis in the Israeli army, border police etc.

18 --> Under Apartheid, Black South Africans could not vote, and faced many restrictions of rights by law. This abuse of the term "apartheid" is a gross and wicked fabrication and a willful distortion of what happened in both South Africa and Israel. Those who knowingly use it should be ashamed of themselves, and those taken in by it should do their homework before tossing around incendiary false accusations.

19 --> Yes, Arabs in Israel and the territories often do face police and military restrictions, connected to the terrorism campaigns of suicide bombings and the like. Yes, to prevent attacks, a fence was built along the Gaza border and along the West Bank border, with walls in sections where sniper shootings were a persistent problem. But, whose fault is that? 

20 --> As for the notion that he Israeli, Jewish presence in the Land is a colonialist enterprise, let us for the moment accept the genetically proved false assertion that the Ashkenazi Jews are not "real" Jews. Then, their claim to legitimacy in the land is that of settled immigrants who have invested a century of treasure and lives into building it up. Such "settlers" should be WELCOMED, not hated and murdered.

21 --> And that is before we look at the actual genetic evidence, which is consistent with populations of Jewish men settling in areas of exile, marrying local women, and then forming an essentially closed community; to the point where certain genetic defects are a problem. The Ashkenazi are Jews, and what is more the genetic evidence points to their being close relatives of the Arabs, and perhaps even closer relatives of the Kurds. Who last, just happen to be in the right place to be in significant part descended from the exiles of the Northern ten Tribes.

22 --> Going beyond that, we have to face the implication of 870,000 exiles from lands all over the Middle East, some from populations that were 2,600 years old. Of these 600,000 were resettled in Israel as irreconcilable refugees.

23 --> So, even granting that there were a similar number of Palestinian Arab refugees, that exchange of refugees immediately and irrefutably establishes the legitimacy of Israel as a land of resettlement of refugees.

24 --> Mr Abbas knows all of this, or should and could easily know all of this. What is his response? As Ynet news summarises:
On Friday afternoon, Abbas said he was adamant about not recognizing Israel as the Jewish state.

"They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state," Abbas said in a meeting with some 200 senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the US, shortly before taking the podium and delivering a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. 
25 --> In short, intransigence, in the teeth of easily accessible facts, and accompanied by the sort of turnabout false accusations above.

 That sort of venom has predictable, bloody consequences.

The only way I know of to avert such, would be for a critical mass of leading voices in the world to correct the falsehood, and call Mr Abbas et al to account and apologise then make amends, diplomatically and culturally.

That way, we might have a basis for building a real peace, instead of using the Oslo process as simply a stage to what seems to have been the true, hidden agenda all along: destruction of Israel, and massacre or exile of its population. As had been attempted in 1948 and in 1967.

Which is exactly what kept being whispered in corners and as has occasionally leaked out into the public, for those of us who were paying attention.

Absent this, the only other means I can tell for averting rivers of blood would be for the US to station a significant number of troops in the key places in Israel on a permanent basis, and announce that an attack on Israel and/or these troops would be taken as an attack on the USA, to be retaliated against, with full and prompt force.

Just as, what has kept the peace in Korea for sixty years.

Neither is at all remotely likely to happen. Sadly.

The likely outcome is highly predictable: rivers of blood and cities burned to ashes. END

F/N, Sept 26: The Australian reports that  Iran may be six months from a nuclear weapon, i.e. the clock on the bomb is now ticking:
IRAN may be just six months away from developing a nuclear bomb, despite international attempts to thwart the program through sanctions and cyber attacks.

Two years after an underground installation in the city of Qmo was revealed in a joint press conference by US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and former British prime minister Gordon Brown, Iran has significantly advanced its uranium enrichment program at the site . . . .

"We believe if Iran broke out now they could have a bomb in six months," said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who runs the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. "They've done this right in front of our faces."

Iran has ignored four sets of UN Security Council resolutions since 2006 calling on it to cease enriching uranium. With the world's attention diverted by the Arab Spring, Tehran has pressed ahead, overcoming delays caused by Stuxnet, a mysterious computer worm that made centrifuges malfunction.

Greg Jones, a defence analyst at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre, calculates that Iran could now produce a bomb within 62 days . . . [more]