Eliot Spitzer: The Short Goodbye

Nora Ephron

Eliot Spitzer: The Short Goodbye

I can't imagine Eliot Spitzer is not going to resign as governor of New York now that he has been caught in what today's papers are calling a sex ring. (How divine. A sex ring.) The Times has an editorial urging him to leave office on the grounds that he'll be so busy defending himself in this current legal mess that he won't have time to be governor. So it's a done deal, really: he'll be out by noon is my guess. So goodbye. I feel sad. I liked him. It's tragic. Etc.

But having read every word of the indictment, may I suggest that should he stay on, Spitzer will probably have far more time to focus on being governor, in that he won't have to spend hours on the phone with someone named Temeka arguing over his 55 per cent deposit, his in-store credit, the cash limits on bank machine withdrawals in late-night Washington, and ways for Kristen the prostitute to get into her hotel room without her having to give her name at the check-in desk downstairs.

Meanwhile, Spitzer, who a year ago had a shot at national office, is today a laughingstock because of his reckless involvement in ... what? Let's just say this right out: in nothing. He arranged for a date with a hooker and she crossed a state line. This violates something called the Mann Act, which was passed in 1910, before women could vote. It's the legal equivalent of an old chestnut, it seems barely constitutional, and no one with half a brain could possibly think of it as anything worth prosecuting anyone for. Although Eliot Spitzer might. This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy.

But they shouldn't really. It's one of the things you have to admire about Senator Larry Craig: he's still there. And who can say he's doing a better or worse job than he was before? And compared to whom in the United States Senate?

Which reminds me, New York's Senator Chuck Schumer has been heard from on the question of what is to be done about Eliot Spitzer. He has gone out on a limb to say he is sad for Spitzer's family but he isn't going to comment until Spitzer is more forthcoming. I can only suggest that Schumer has not read the indictment, since there's no way to do so without hoping that there will be nothing more forthcoming.

New York's other Senator also had something to say on the subject yesterday, and it may not surprise you to hear that she somehow managed to make Senator Schumer look brave. "Let's wait and see what comes out over the next few days," Hillary Clinton said.

House files contempt lawsuit

House files contempt lawsuit

House Files Suit to Enforce Subpoenas Against 2 White House Officials

The House Judiciary Committee filed suit Monday to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said, "We will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress."

Conyers said he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration's claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with constitutional principles.

The White House took the opposite view.

"They continue to focus on partisan theater," White House press secretary Dana Perino said of House Democrats. "The confidentiality that the president receives from his senior advisers and the constitutional principle of separation of powers must be protected from overreaching and we are confident that the courts will agree with us."

The House committee early last year subpoenaed Bolten for documents and Miers for testimony in trying to make a case that the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys because they were not supportive enough of Republicans' political agenda.

Bolten and Miers refused to comply.

On President Bush's behalf, White House Counsel Fred Fielding said such information is private and covered by executive privilege.

The House passed the contempt citation by a 223-32 vote that most Republicans boycotted.

A week and a half ago, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said he would not refer the House's contempt citation to a grand jury and that neither Bolten nor Myers had committed a crime.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then announced she had given the Judiciary Committee authority to sue Bolten and Myers in federal court.

The lawsuit says executive privilege — intended to protect the confidentiality of advice from the president's closest advisers — does not cover documents that don't involve the president.

The privilege also does not cover documents whose contents are widely known, previously released or that were the subject of extensive, previously authorized testimony, the lawsuit adds.

The lawsuit says the White House is making a blanket claim of executive privilege, despite the administration saying that the president was not personally involved in communications subpoenaed form Bolten.

It says Miers' conduct is inconsistent with representations that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel made to Congress in 1971 when OLC was being run by future Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Rehnquist told Congress that a witness intending to invoke executive privilege may not simply ignore congressional subpoena and fail to appear.

Conyers said the administration "simply will not negotiate towards a compromise resolution, so we must proceed."

___

On the Net:

Justice Department: http://www.justice.gov

House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/

Source: AP News

The 9/11 B. S. Movement

The 9/11 B. S. Movement
Blatant Insanity = Intentional DIS-information

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
-Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

It's a sad day for me, as I have to wade hip deep through this sewage. But, it's come to this. We are drowning in DIS-information, that is deliberate gibberish passed off as a "9/11 conspiracy theory," which is intended to associate all of the 9/11 skeptics with "whack job" ideas about that day.

The rational public will then see the "whack job" ideas dutifully printed in the mainstream corporate press, and they will respond with revulsion to the concept of skepticism of the official 9/11 story. It's simple guilt by association psychology.

No one wants to associate with obvious morons. There is indeed method to the madness.

As if we haven't suffered enough ad hominem attacks, we now must defend against deliberate campaigns that are on their face: MAD. And they're supposedly coming from us.

In the Beginning

It started with some anomalies at the Pentagon, an initial penetration hole that -- in most photos -- appeared too small to accomodate the Boeing 757 said to have rammed the building there.

This was accompanied by strange behavior by both the Pentagon and the FBI to confiscate and keep secret all of the videotapes from the security cameras around the site. These were provocative acts that got a lot of people suspicious of what had really happened there.

All manner of speculation followed. Some people said a missile hit there. Some said a small fighter jet fired a missile, and then it too crashed there. Some said a plane flew right over the top while preplanted explosives blew up the Pentagon.

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association."
-- Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Those who controlled the information drew in skeptics with the sweet lure of a seeming inconsistency. Droves of people bought DVDs like "In Plane Site" to find out more. The "Loose Change" video accepted this "small hole" theory that somehow proved the government was lying about the Pentagon crash scene.

I was told of a "12 foot hole," a "16 foot hole," and an "18 foot hole" on many occasions, on many websites.

Not true:

Click for larger image.
(SOURCE: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fig_3_8.jpg
"This photograph, reproduced in the FEMA Report, shows punctured walls extending to column line 8, about 50 feet to the north of the impact hole center.")[1]

Not where the real story lay.

If millions and millions of people could be so easily redirected, so easily discredited by their own words, their own deeds, the perps at the top had learned a valuable lesson. The weaknesses of the "9/11 Truth Movement" were that it was vulnerable to distractions, to infiltration, to bogus evidence, and even to nonsensical arguments.

Take the case of Michael C. Ruppert, one of the first, perhaps one of the greatest investigators into September 11th 2001. His Truth and Lies of 9/11 is what roped me into this subject, back in late 2002. Ruppert was a powerful speaker, a devoted investigator, and a serious scholar of ilicit US government covert operations.

So, when everyone expected him to crack the case wide open in his book Crossing the Rubicon, we found out that he had written a book primarily about ... "Peak Oil???"

Sure, there was some information about war games happening during the attacks. But, why was focus lost? Why was 9/11 turned into "peak oil?" These two areas are completely different subjects (...Ruppert would disagree). Michael Ruppert was distracted from the goal, and he suffered as a result.

The "In Plane Site" crew stepped in, and they took the initiative with what? Pods! It was "pods" that were going to break 9/11 wide open! Sure, the (normal) wing fairings [2] under the 767's that struck the World Trade Center were now giant protrusions that can only have been put there by demonic conspirators, who don't mind letting it all hang out in front of the NY press.

The reflective properties of the aluminum airplane skin were not to be scrutinized; just take it from the video: pods, pods, pods.

DISINFO 2.0

Well that's the disinformation of yesteryear. Today, they have fired up the thrusters, and they are on some kind of disinformation rampage over at the dark side think tanks. It has become some kind of contest to pass along the most insane nonsense for the willing dupes out there to slurp up.

No planes hit the WORLD TRADE CENTER???

Of all the preposterous garbage I have come across, this one takes the feces. On its face, with very little effort or time, this senselessness is debunked in several ways. If you see the term "TV Fakery", get out, click onward, make a hasty lunge for saner pastures. You'll thank me later.

On top of many thousands of eyewitnesses looking directly up at the second plane as it crashed into the South Tower, and the photographs, and the videos, and the entry holes, the exit holes, the explosions which travelled through the buildings, the radar tracks, etc., none of this is good enough for the "No planers." They know better.

What is it exactly they think they know?

They know that all the live broadcasts were easily faked in realtime on all national and local TV stations simultaneously -- BACKWARDS. Yes, backwards is my word for it, because you see if there was no plane in the sky, and it had to be drawn in by computers, the only way to synchronize all this (with teams of how many witnesses? in how many locations? with how much precise foreknowledge? and for what reason?) is to think of it as a pre-timed explosion, and that the plane had to be calculated in backwards from the prearranged, agreed upon time of detonation, and at the precise locations where these explosives were planted, and this information had to be given to numerous technical staff in many media organizations...

They're pushing this as a "serious" concept! You can't write this shit.

Given how live cameras use lenses with analog zooming, meaning they show you a frame where the operator chooses the framing angle -- and can pan and tilt at the whim of the cameraman -- there seems to be NO WAY IN HELL this is even remotely feasible even for one network that was a direct subsidiary of the intelligence service allegedly perpetrating this hoax.

The "no planer" position is that ALL videos and ALL phtotographs of that plane crash were controlled and "faked" by the invisible hands of the puppet masters!

(SOURCE: Camcorder footage of Pavel Hlava [4].)

(SOURCE: Camcorder footage posted by Jeremy Morrison [5].)

Of course all the private footage was rapidly converted to show the "fakery," and no one ever talked about it. In fact no one even thought of this blatantly bogus baloney for years after 9/11/01.

Next the "TV Fakery" people tell you that the landing gear (and any other airplane wreckage in NYC) was "planted," without a shred of evidence to support this theory. Why do they tell you this?

Because only an asshole would believe it without any supporting proof!

They say it's "impossible" for plane parts to have travelled through the central core of the WTC North tower.

Not so.

Click for larger.
(SOURCE: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg
"Fig 1. World Trade Center's first 110-story tower is already up to 10th floor level above grade; excavation is almost complete.")[3]

The core was dense, but not impenetrable. As the plane severed columns on its way in at a high rate of speed, the possibility of plane parts continuing through the core, and out the other side is far more plausible than any alternative explanations. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until some countervaling force acts upon them (Newton).

These agents of bullshit -- whether neocon ideologues, or willing dupes -- are extremely aggressive and prevalent all over the Internet now. They are actively "poisoning the well" of legitimate discussion of September 11th 2001 with their endless and ridiculous disinformation.

Who benefits?

Meet the Masters of Disinfoland

The "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" group has a history that casual observers might not realize. Originally formed to legitimize the study of September 11th anomalies (or was it?) by PhD's and other academics in the related fields, the organization was of course vulnerable to infiltration.

James H. Fetzer PhD. "wrote the book" on disinformation [6]. In Fetzer's study of the ways of twisting the truth and delegitimizing your opponent, he revealed many of the disengenuous techniques that he himself later used against his fellow scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement [7].

Fetzer's control of the Scholars group/website led to its eventual breakup. The "Scholars" website suddenly started entertaining nonsense theories, under the guise of legitimate scientific inquiry. The group imploded in December 2006 with the promotion of the "directed energy beam" hypothesis by Judy Wood PhD., and the subsequent retirement of Dr. Steven Jones PhD. from the group.

Steven Jones went on to start up a second group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth AND JUSTICE. Jones smartly retained editorial control of the Journal of 9/11 Studies (much to Fetzer's dismay) which publishes related papers.

The "directed energy weapons" garbage was at the root of most of this controversy.

Fetzer:

"I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry, that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center." -James Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, December 2006

Add to that an attempt to legitimize the "no planes" claptrap:

"I am inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration." -James Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, December 2006 [8]

The "directed energy weapons" is the second most idiotic "theory" I've heard yet. It takes more time and effort to properly debunk[9], and its proponents couch it in pseudo-scientific jargon in order to fool the average reader. It's still nonsense and demonstrably so.

From their own mouths, this "theory" is rendered laugh out loud clownish:

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”

Fetzer: “Planes?”

Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.” [10]

"Huge" as in the big lie principle. A simple viewing of the towers collapsing shows that a beam from orbit has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The tops of the buildings do not "disintegrate" into "dustified steel" as a first step. The collapses begin near the plane impact zones. Having a directed beam from above cut away all the supporting columns horizontally inside the building, floor by floor, is not remotely feasible, even if Darth Vader himself was at the controls. This theory is so bad, so on its face bullshit, that it's incredible so many people have fallen for it.

Or have they?

How many anonymous internet posters are there pushing this pap? The crew is highly active and well represented on message boards, but how many unique and different individuals does it take to create a disruptive presence?

I think we are witnessing a small number of highly active operatives who get off on mindfucking the gullible public. I'd prefer not to name them all here, but you'll see them around, and smile.

The directed energy beam hoax has a deeply insidious aspect to it, however. It renders moot all of those eyewitnesses [11] who reported "bombs," "explosions," "secondary devices," "detonator charges," and every other euphemism for high velocity blasts. The more than 100 firemen [12] who reported explosions are irrelevent to the Star Wars Death Star "theory." This is intentional misdirection.

Your smile may very well turn to a frown when you see the gusto and prolific nature of these shills, who like cockroaches are swarming the message boards of reasoned debate, and transforming them into wastelands, garbage dumps of idiotic drivel.

They are a movement unto themselves, the 9/11 Disinformation Movement, a parasite clinging onto the legitimate "truth movement", the one that seeks new independent investigations of the attacks, and full disclosure.

In other words, the enemies of truth and justice, not to be confused with bonafide investigators who make sense, have impeccable sources, and are unsatisfied with the "official" 9/11 narrative.

###

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Notes:

1. ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole', Jim Hoffman, http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

2.Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims, by Eric Salter with contributions by Brian Salter, questionsquestions.net, 9 September 2004, http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

3. SOME ARTICLES FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

4. pavel hlava video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k

5. Footage in possession of Jeremy Morrison, http://jeremymorrison.com/wtcplane.html

6. Disinformation: The Use of False Information, Minds and Machines Journal, http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1u2q540010236xq/

7. 9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples, Arabesque's Blog, http://www.911blogger.com/node/6531

8. Wayback Machine, archive.org, Scholars for 9/11 Truth Website, December 25, 2006, http://web.archive.org/web/20061225083635/http://www.st911.org/

9. The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

10. Radio Interview: Fetzer interviews Wood, transcribed in comments by Arabesque http://www.911blogger.com/node/9431, http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3

11. Eyewitness and Media Accounts of Bombs at the WTC,. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094370627958457222&hl=en

12. 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, Graeme MacQueen, Journal of 9/11 Studies,http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

USPS monitors your mail

Officials monitor thousands of letters without warrants

The US postal service approves more than 10,000 requests from US law enforcement each year to record names, addresses and other information from the outside of packages, according to information released through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The warrantless surveillance mail program -- as it is known -- requires only the approval of the US Postal Inspection Service Director, and not a judge.

Since 1998, the inspector has approved more than 97% of requests during criminal inquiries, new documents show. According to USA Today, which filed the request, "In 2004, 2005 and 2006, the most recent year provided, officials granted at least 99.5% of requests."

"The idea of the government tracking that amount of mail is quite alarming," Director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project Jameel Jaffer told the paper. "When you realize that (the figure) does not include national security matters, the numbers are even more alarming."

Officials would not disclose how much mail was monitored in national security or "terror"-related investigations. Under the PATRIOT ACT, those who received letters notifying them that they were being investigated often were gagged from even reporting their being targeted.

Responding to a USA Today request for the national security-related data, "inspection service counsel Anthony Alverno wrote that even revealing the frequency of the surveillance would undermine its effectiveness "to the detriment of the government's national security interests."
Signing statement may have allowed mail to be opened

There's reason to believe more mail may be being opened, as well.

In late 2006, a signing statement issued by President Bush suggested that his office had expanded executive branch power to open mail without a warrant.

The signing statement accompanied H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which reiterated a prohibition on opening first class mail without a warrant.

"In 1996, the postal regulations were altered to permit the opening of First Class mail without a warrant in narrowly defined cases where the Postal Inspector believes there is a credible threat that the package contains dangerous material like bombs," the ACLU said in a press release at the time. "Instead of referencing the narrow exception in the postal regulations, the president’s signing statement suggests that he is assuming broader authority to open mail without a warrant."

In January 2007, the ACLU and Center for National Security Studies filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information regarding any additional warrantless mail surveillance.

Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides

Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote Pelosi.

Pelosi shot back that the aides can expect a lawsuit.

"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs. Criticism of Bush's use of executive power is a key tenet of the Democrats' platform, from the presidential race on down.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers. The plaintiffs would be the entire Judiciary Committee, who would be represented by the House's lawyers, according to aides to Pelosi and committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

Mukasey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush's instruction.

A civil suit would drag out a slow-motion crawl to a constitutional struggle between a Democratic-run Congress and a Republican White House that has been simmering for more than a year.

Democrats say Bush's instructions to Miers and Bolten to ignore the House Judiciary Committee's subpoenas was an abuse of power and an effort to block an effort to find out whether the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 for political reasons.

Republicans call the whole affair a political game and walked out of the House vote on the contempt citations in protest.

The 223-32 House vote on a resolution approving the contempt citations Feb. 14 was the first of its type in 25 years. The White House pointed out that it was the first time that such action had been taken against top White House officials who had been instructed by the president to remain silent to preserve executive privilege.

In his letter, received by the House early Friday evening, Mukasey pointed out that not only was Miers directed not to testify, she also was immune from congressional subpoenas and was right to not show up to the hearing to which she had been summoned.

"The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege," Mukasey wrote, quoting Justice policy.

"Accordingly," Mukasey concluded, "the department has determined that the noncompliance by Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas did not constitute a crime."

Though they were not surprised, Democrats reacted to Mukasey's letter with outrage.

"Today's decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the U.S. attorney firings hidden," said Conyers. "In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the committee's subpoenas."

Despite Claims That America Is ‘Open To Attack,’ GOP Rejects Yet Another PAA Extension

Despite Claims That America Is ‘Open To Attack,’ GOP Rejects Yet Another PAA Extension

Two weeks ago, the hastily-passed Protect America Act (PAA) expired after the Bush administration and its supporters refused to approve a 21-day extension of the law. Since then, President Bush and his allies in Congress have engaged in a fear campaign to pressure the House into passing a Senate-approved update of the PAA that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms.

President Bush continued the fear-mongering in his press conference yesterday, bellowing that “no renewal of…the Protect America Act is dangerous for the security of the country, just dangerous.”

Challenging Bush and the GOP to hold true to their rhetoric, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a bill today to extend the PAA for 30 days while negotiations between the House and Senate proceed:

As we move forward, there is no reason not to extend the Protect America Act to ensure that there are no gaps in our intelligence gathering capabilities. Even Admiral McConnell, the Director of national Intelligence, has testified that such an extension would be valuable. But the President threatens to veto an extension, and our Republican colleagues continue, inexplicably, to oppose it.

Predictably, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) objected to Reid’s unanimous consent motion, effectively rejecting the extension. Watch it:

Despite their claims that “America is at risk” without the Protect America Act, the White House and congressional conservatives have been unwilling to take actions that would lead to its extension. As Reid noted today, the House and Senate have been working since the passage of the Senate bill to reconcile difference between the two chambers, but “Republicans have instructed their staff not to participate in these negotiations.”

If Bush and his congressional cronies truly believed that America is “open to attack” without the PAA, they’d support a temporary extension and engage in good faith negotiations. Since they haven’t, it’s clear they’re more interested in playing political games than working to protect Americans.

Bush to veto anti-torture bill next week.Congress recently passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, which contained a provision creating a single in

Bush to veto anti-torture bill next week.

Congress recently passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, which contained a provision creating a single interrogation standard for the U.S. government that bans the use of waterboarding. CQ reports that President Bush will veto the bill next week:

“The president’s expected to veto it next week,” said Emily Lawrimore, a spokeswoman for the White House. “We received it today.”

Although the exact date for the veto is unclear, the president likely will not act until after Tuesday’s primaries, since numerous lawmakers will not be on Capitol Hill then.

The Gavel has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) statement urging Bush to sign the legislation.

Directive 51, a national emergency.Directive 51, a national emergency.

The Woman Who Wrote Shakespeare

THE DARK LADY: THE WOMAN WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE

The Dark Lady Players, a New York Shakespeare company are about to demonstrate that the author of the Shakespearean plays was a black, Jewish woman, Amelia Bassano Lanier (1569-1645). This is the most recent authorship theory to have been accepted by the Shakespearean Authorship Trust chaired by Mark Rylance.

Lanier was the first woman in England to publish a book of original poetry, Salve Deus (1611), and for a decade was mistress to Lord Hunsdon, the man in charge of the English theater. A Marrano Jew of Venetian-Moroccan origin, she was identified in 1973 as the 'dark lady' of the Sonnets. Her literary signatures have now been found on seven of the plays.

In March 2008, at ManhattanTheaterSource, 177 MacDougal Street, New York, the Dark Lady Players are providing two public demonstrations of the Jewish religious allegories that underpin the plays, together with a lecture by their Artistic Director, John Hudson on the Shakespearean Authorship. There will also be a free screening of the Dark Lady Players' production of Midsummer Night's Dream; A Comic Jewish Satire, which was first performed at the Smithsonian Institution in 2007 as part of the Washington Shakespeare Festival.

The discovery of these Jewish allegories in the plays, known as the Atwill-Hudson Discovery, definitively shows that their author was Jewish. It also confirms the cutting edge New Testament scholarship described in Joseph Atwill's book Caesar's Messiah (Ulysses Press, 2005), which is beginning to attract increasing attention.

For more information
www.darkladyplayers.com
www.caesarsmessiah.com
www.theatresource.org/
www.shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org.uk/

See news story 28 February 2008
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/022808/ltKosherBard.html

Press contact; Daniela Amini
(646) 414-1659
daniela575@rcn.com

Simple remedy for domestic-spying deadlock

Simple remedy for domestic-spying deadlock

by P. A. Triot

Among today’s headlines is one that defies belief: “Bush threatens to veto intelligence bill.”

It seems the occupant of the White House isn’t pleased with the version of the bill offered up by the House of Representatives––mainly because of what that version does not contain.

What’s missing from the House version is a provision that telecommunications companies are not granted immunity from prosecution or private lawsuits for cooperating with government agencies who break the law by illegal eavesdropping on U. S. citizens.

First, let’s give some perspective to this matter.

The fourth amendment to United States Constitution––one of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights––reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course, any high schooler can tell you that the U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, for the most part, it has served this country well for 207 years.

Since that is the case, the U. S. Congress has no authority to simply give the president permission to conduct activities that violate the people’s right to be “secure in their person, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Please understand that any legislation that does an end-around the fourth amendment to the U. S. Constitution is unconstitutional on its face.

In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) of 1978, which allows the government to obtain a warrant three days after the wiretap spying has begun, when held up to the fourth amendment standard, probably is unconstitutional itself.

Now, look at the current so-called intelligence bill.

Both the House and Senate version of the bill authorize the president to engage in wire-tapping of all telecommunications (including all telephone conversations, e-mails or any other means of electronic activity) of all the people in the world––Americans and foreigners––without first obtaining warrants to do so from a federal judge, not even the FISA court.

What is the FISA court, you ask? Why the FISA court is a secret federal court that is held in a secret location that was created by the FISA bill in 1978 to approve requests for search warrants (and wire-taps, etc.).

Since its inception, the FISA court has blocked fewer than 10 requests from federal investigators for search warrants, of the unknown thousands of requests it has processed.

Let’s review what we have.

1. The law that Congress passed a little more than a year ago gave the president authority to conduct searches without first obtaining a search warrant. That law is unconstitutional by any standard. The original law expired after one year (which date was passed about a week ago).

2. Congress is now trying to pass an extension to that unconstitutional law. Of course the extension itself is unconstitutional.

3. The president objects that the House of Representatives does not want to immunize telecommunications companies from liability for assisting the government in engaging in unconstitutional activities.

Obtaining search warrants has been a cornerstone of our society for 207 years. It’s more American than apple pie.

The solution the president is as clear as the hand in front of my face. All he has to do is:

GET A SEARCH WARRANT!

P. A. Triot is a retired jounalist.

William F. Buckley Dead At 82

William F. Buckley Dead At 82

NEW YORK — William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.

His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.

Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of "Firing Line," harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor's race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.

Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent's discomfort with wide-eyed glee.

"I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition," he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. "I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of anyone."

Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down "Firing Line" after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. "You've got to end sometime and I'd just as soon not die onstage," he told the audience.

"For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television," fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. "He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement."

Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands _ from opposing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were "no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation."

Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.

Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."

Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").

Israeli Child, Two Others, Wounded by Palestinian Rocket Attacks

Israeli Child, Two Others, Wounded by Palestinian Rocket Attacks Despite Assaults, Israel Continues Humanitarian Aid into Gaza Royalty-free Photos from Sheroot, Feb. 25, 2008 Sderot Area Contacts Available for Comment Timeline of Israeli-Arab Peace Initiatives Since 1977 Three residents of the Israeli town of Sderot , including a 10-year-old boy, a baby and the baby’s mother, were injured today (Feb. 25) by rockets fired into residential areas by Palestinian militants. The 10-year-old’s arm was partially severed in the blast, according to hospital officials.[1] The 1-year-old baby boy and his mother were lightly injured by one of the rockets, [2] which hit a residential area. Another Qassam fell in Ashkelon , an Israeli city with a population of more than 100,000. [3] Two weeks ago, 8-year-old Osher Twito had to have his leg amputated after he was hit by a Qassam rocket fired into Sderot by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. [4] Such attacks – more than 4,000 rockets and mortar shells – have occurred almost daily since Israel voluntarily evacuated all of its Jewish citizens from Gaza in Aug. 2005 in hopes of paving the way for an independent Palestinian state. Today’s attacks occurred just before a planned protest by Palestinians in Gaza , who gathered along the border between the Rafah and Erez checkpoints. A few thousand participants, many of them women and children, participated in the march which was organized by Iran-backed Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. The organizers had said there would be 40,000 to 50,000 participants taking part to oppose restrictions on aid into Gaza . [5] Israel imposed the restrictions in an attempt to get terrorist groups in Gaza to stop the almost daily rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli residential towns. Hamas, which controls Gaza , has done nothing to stop the attacks. Humanitarian Aid to Gaza The Gaza border crossings have been in operation despite the ongoing rockets and mortar shells fired by Palestinian terrorists into Israel. Even today (Feb. 25) with heightened security alerts due to the threat of a Palestinian human wave breaking through the Gaza border, 60 trucks with humanitarian goods passed through the Sufa crossing into Gaza. [6] Since June 16, 2007, when partial restrictions were imposed after the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, 16,778 trucks have passed through the border crossings delivering 385,361 tons of goods and more than 29.3 million gallons (112 million liters) of fuel. [7] Israel facilitates the transfer of supplies into Gaza, including food, medicine and fuel via five crossing terminals into the Gaza Strip: Erez, Karni, Nahal-Oz, Sufa and Kerem Shalom (see map below). The crossings continued to operate on Feb. 21. During that time 3,649 tons were transferred through the crossings into Gaza including: 164 tons of rice; 293 tons of fruit and vegetables; 106 tons of flour and yeast; 1,872 tons of wheat; 504 tons of animal feed; 16 tons of medical supplies; 160,088 gallons (606.000 liters) of fuel; 306 tons of heating gas.[8] The following goods have been transferred through the various crossings into Gaza since June 16, 2007 (information correct as of Feb. 21):[9] Karni Crossing (goods): 132,786 tons, principally wheat and animal feed and also other raw commodities such as barley, corn and soya beans. Sufa Crossing (goods): 155,539 tons, including general food products such as flour, rice, milk powder, fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy products, sugar and medicines. Kerem Shalom Crossing (goods): 97,037 tons Nahal Oz Crossing (fuel): 3,449 tankers with 32,429 tons of heating gas; more than 2.4 million gallons (9 million liters) of benzine (gasoline); more than 13.2 million gallons (50.1 million liters) of diesel for automobiles; and 16.7 million gallons (63.2 million liters) of diesel for the Gaza power station. From Nov. 2007 - Jan. 18, 2008, 71 truckloads of flowers were exported from Gaza into Israel. Map of Gaza Showing Five Main Crossings Map courtesy of Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement Footnotes [1] Grinberg, Mijal and Azoulay, Yuval, “Women, two children hurt in Qassam strike on Sderot,” Haaretz, Feb. 25, 2008, http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/957466.html [2] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Feb. 25, 2008 [3] Hadad, Shmulik, “Qassam lands near Sderot school; child lightly injured,” YnetNews, Feb. 25, 2008,http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3511004,00.html [4] Hider, James “Israeli fury over boy maimed by rocket,” The Times, Feb. 11, 2008,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3346144.ece; Azoulay, Yuval, “Condition improves for Sderot boy severely injured by Qassam,” Haaretz, Feb. 14, 2008,http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954321.html [5] Al-Mughrabi, Nidal, "Gazans stage mass protest against Israeli blockade," Haaretz, Feb. 25, 2008,http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSL1222044720080225 [6] “ Israel sends 60 truckloads of humanitarian supplies to Palestinians in Gaza , despite threat of border breach and Kassams,” Infolive.tv, Feb. 24, 2008, http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-18629-israelnews-israel-sends-60-truckloads-humanitarian-supplies-palestinians-gaza-d [7] Israel Ministry of Defense’s Unit for Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, Feb. 25, 2008, http://www1.idf.il/MATPASH/Site/Templates/controller.asp [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. Timeline of Israeli-Arab Peace Initiatives Since 1977 Jan. 22, 2008: Israel Continues to Provide Humanitarian Aid and Electricity to Palestinians in Gaza: Despite the increased number of ongoing rocket and mortar fire from Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza; over 4,000 missiles and rockets were fired since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in August 2005, the country continues to seek peace with the Palestinians. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said on Jan. 24, 2008 “The goal is to end the conflict between our two nations, our two peoples, by the creation or giving the answer to the national aspirations of the Palestinians by creating a Palestinian state. Just as Israel is homeland for the Jewish people, the Palestinian state is and should be by its own creation a homeland for the Palestinians.” [1] Jan. 9-11, 2008: President George W. Bush Visit to Israel: President Bush embarked on a tour of a number of Middle East countries, starting with Israel. The purpose of the visit was to advance peace negotiations initiated at the Annapolis conference in Nov. 2007. Bush urged the Palestinian side to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and also called on Israel to halt settlement construction and remove unauthorized settler outposts. [2] Nov. 27, 2007: Annapolis Summit: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sign a joint statement in Annapolis, Md. to lay the groundwork for peace talks. The joint document delineates broad principles of agreements and commitments to peace and stipulates that both sides will establish steering committees, led by the heads of their delegations to the Annapolis talks, that will meet continuously starting Dec. 12, 2007. Both sides agree to meet on a bi-weekly basis and express hope to reach a final peace agreement by the end of 2008. [3] June 25, 2007: Sharm el-Sheikh Summit II: Olmert meets in Sharm el-Sheikh with Abbas, Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II. The leaders gather to discuss containment of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and to strengthen Abbas' Fatah party in the West Bank. As a goodwill gesture, Olmert announces the Israeli government's intention to release 250 Fatah prisoners who have 'no blood on their hands' and who pledge to renounce violence. [4] April 1, 2007: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative: In response to the March 28, 2007 Arab League Summit at Riyadh, Olmert welcomes the Arab Initiative, revised since its conception in 2002, and invites the Arab heads of state to a meeting in Israel to further discuss the initiative and collaborate on improving it. [5] Aug. 15-Aug. 23, 2005: Gaza and West Bank Disengagement: In an effort to relieve the security threats against Israelis living in Gaza and to try to put the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track, Israel unilaterally pulls all of its citizens out of the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. This dramatic move costs Israel approximately $2 billion, and includes the evacuation of all of the roughly 9,000 Israelis living in the affected areas in addition to exhuming and transferring all graves in Gaza to Israeli territory. On Sept. 12, 2005, the last Israel Defense Forces soldier departs the Gaza Strip, marking a historic step towards peace by Israel. [6] Feb. 8, 2005: Sharm el-Sheikh Summit I: Sharon meets with PA President Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan to announce the implementation of Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. Abbas and Sharon agree upon a ceasefire. Sharon expresses his hope that the disengagement will foster a step forward in the Roadmap for Peace. [7] Dec. 18, 2003: Fourth Herzliya Conference: At this conference, Prime Minister Sharon presents a plan for Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria in exchange for peace. The Israeli Cabinet approves the plan on June 6, 2004 and the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) approves it on Oct. 25, 2004. The disengagement plan, a major sacrifice for peace, calls for evacuating nearly 9,000 Israeli residents living in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel also proposes the disengagement plan in hopes of stimulating progress in the peace process on the Palestinian side. [8] June 4, 2003: Peace Summit at Aqaba: Sharon and Abbas meet in Jordan to reaffirm their commitment to the Roadmap. Sharon promises withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian areas, and Abbas pledges an end to the Intifada and the Palestinian culture of hate against Israel. The prospects of the summit are shattered Aug. 19, 2003, after Palestinian terrorists carry out a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. As a result, on Sept. 1, 2003 the Israeli Cabinet decides to wage war against Hamas and other terrorist groups, and halts the diplomatic process with the Palestinian Authority until it proves it is taking concrete measures to stop terrorism. [9] Apr. 30, 2003: Roadmap for Peace: Based upon President Bush's speech of June 24, 2002 and principles of the Oslo Accords, this plan is supervised by the Quartet: the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations. It calls for serious alterations in the Palestinian government and results in the appointment of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The Roadmap, which charts progress toward a final-status agreement through a series of benchmarks relating to security and political progress, is still the official blueprint towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians, with the Quartet meeting intermittently to track the progress of the plan. [10] June 24, 2002: Bush's Vision for the Middle East: In a Rose Garden Speech, President George W. Bush outlines a new plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, with the possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state established in the near future. This policy calls for new Palestinian leadership (specifically acknowledging the corruption and unwillingness to stop terrorism that characterized Arafat's regime) and a reformulated democratic government for the Palestinians. The president also calls upon the Palestinians, as well as other Arab states supporting or tolerating terrorism, to cease those activities. The plan focuses mainly on the impediments to the peace process posed by the Palestinians since the Israelis had repeatedly offered and acted upon various concessions for peace, and on greater democratization throughout the Arab world. [11] March 28, 2002: The Arab Peace Initiative: Leaders of Arab nations come together at the Beirut Summit, where Saudi Arabia proposes a plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This plan is known as the Saudi Initiative, or the Arab Peace Initiative. The plan calls for Israel to withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders; supports the 'right of return' for all Palestinian refugees and their descendents; and the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Arab states in attendance pledge not to exercise military action to end the hostilities, and state that if Israel agrees to the aforementioned stipulations without modification, the Arab countries will in return consider the Arab-Israeli conflict to be over and normalize relations with Israel. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres responds to the initiative on behalf of Israel, stating that Israel views the plan as encouraging, but that the agreement must be discussed directly with the Palestinians and that no accord can come to fruition unless terror activities are ceased, a condition not mentioned in the Arab Initiative. [12] Jan. 22-27, 2001: Taba Conference: In the midst of the Second Intifada, and as a follow-up to the Camp David Summit, the Israelis and Palestinians meet for a final attempt to come to an agreement on a Palestinian state. Israel offers 94 percent of the West Bank in addition to Israeli land, culminating in an offer of 97 percent of the total land area requested by the Palestinians. The 'right of return' is also considered. However, the conference ends again in a standstill, and an Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement is issued asserting that the two parties have never before been so close to an agreement and expressing hope for the future. [13] July 11-25, 2000: Camp David Summit: To keep to the schedule set by the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, Arafat and Barak meet with President Clinton at Camp David. In an effort to achieve peace once and for all, Barak offers a series of concessions including Israeli withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip and 95 percent of the West Bank; the subsequent creation of an independent Palestinian state in the aforementioned areas; the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements in those areas given to the Palestinians; land compensation outside of the West Bank for settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty; and Palestinian rule over East Jerusalem and most of the Old City (excluding the Jewish Quarter) and 'religious sovereignty' on the Temple Mount. In exchange, the agreement called for Arafat to declare an end to the conflict and a prohibition of future claims on Israeli land. Arafat rejects the proposal and makes no counter-offer. The summit ends in failure, but a Tri-Lateral Statement is issued delineating the principles of future talks. [14] Sept. 4, 1999: Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum: This memorandum addresses the delay in implementation of the Oslo Accords created by Palestinian non-compliance with security obligations and the subsequent Israeli refusal to redeploy troops in the face of a growing terror threat from Area A (which is under full Palestinian administrative and security control). At this time, Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak meet to reaffirm their commitment to the Oslo Peace Process and set a new deadline, Sept. 13, 2000, for the completion of peace talks. [15] Oct. 23, 1998: Wye River Memorandum: U.S. President Bill Clinton hosts Netanyahu and Arafat to negotiate the details of implementation of Oslo II of 1995. The memorandum emphasizes the need for the Palestinian side to uphold its security obligations. In return, for each phase the Palestinians successfully complete, they are to receive a specified percentage of land (through measures such as Israeli troop deployments). [16] Jan. 17, 1997: Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron: The redeployment of Israeli soldiers from Hebron, the last remaining Palestinian city under Israeli control, is orchestrated in the Hebron Agreement. The protocol is signed by Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This marks the first time Israel's Likud party government has supported territorial withdrawal in the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria), until then widely considered a Labor party policy. [17] Sept. 28, 1995: Oslo II: The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, known as "Oslo II" or "Taba," broadens and supersedes the 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement. This agreement deals with many aspects of the transition to Palestinian autonomy, including how Israel will leave Palestinian-populated areas in the West Bank and Gaza; the provision for Palestinians to elect the newly established Palestinian Council; and the division of the area into three sections based on which group retains responsibility for security divided into Areas A, B and C. Israel also releases Palestinian prisoners as a sign of goodwill. [18] Oct. 26, 1994: Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty: After a series of meetings, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Jordanian Prime Minister Abdul-Salam Majali sign the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. The basic provisions of the treaty delineate the international border; prohibit hostilities between the two nations; agree upon water usage from shared bodies of water; allow for freedom of movement between the two countries as well as access to religious sites within Jerusalem; and formally normalize all relations between Israel and Jordan. Diplomatic relations begin Nov. 27, 1994, and additional bilateral agreements are signed in the coming years in areas such as environment, trade and tourism. [19] July 25, 1994: The Washington Declaration: King Hussein of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin meet publicly in Washington, D.C. for the first time and take important steps toward implementing a peace treaty. The official state of war between the two countries is ended; each nation agrees to follow U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 to seek a total and lasting peace; and Israel acknowledges Jordan's special role in the oversight of Muslim holy places within Jerusalem. The two leaders also focus on future economic cooperation between Israel and Jordan. [20] May 4, 1994: Gaza-Jericho Agreement: In what is also known as the Cairo Agreement, Israel and the Palestinians outline Israel's initial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho, as well as the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Although Israel is removing all of its forces from these areas (and later from Palestinian cities in the West Bank), Yasser Arafat's PA fails to meet the security conditions requiring it to crack down on terror groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. [21] Sept. 14, 1993: Israel-Jordan Common Agenda: After almost two years of Madrid Conference-inspired bilateral talks between Israel and Jordan, the two nations sign the Common Agenda which outlines the impending peace treaty between the two countries. [22] Sept. 13, 1993: The Oslo Accords: After secret negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians in Oslo following the Madrid Peace Conference, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shake hands and sign the "Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements," better known as the Oslo Accords. The agreement calls for the transfer of power in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, beginning with an interim phase, leading to self-government and elections among the Palestinians, and culminating with a final-status agreement in which a permanent Palestinian state will sign an end-of-conflict agreement with Israel. The negotiations phase of the Accords include Rabin and Arafat exchanging letters in which Arafat pledges that the PLO recognizes Israel and commits itself to peace, while Rabin states that Israel recognizes the PLO as a legitimate party in the negotiations for peace. The "land for peace" strategy is heavily employed in these accords. The Oslo Accords are carried out through phased meetings. [23] Oct. 30-Nov.1, 1991: Madrid Peace Conference: The United States and USSR co-host a conference in Spain to set the framework to negotiate peace between Israel and Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, the first time direct and open peace talks are held between Israel and these four partners since 1949. The three-day conference sets in motion bilateral talks between Israel and each of its neighbors, as well as multilateral talks, about issues such as trade, resource development and conflict-prevention. Ultimately, however, no agreements develop from the Madrid process. [24] May 14, 1989: Israel's Peace Initiative: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin announce a plan for peace, based on the Camp David Accords, consisting of four basic parts: strengthening peace with Egypt as a regional cornerstone; promoting full peaceful relations with the Arab states; improving refugee conditions through international efforts; and establishing interim self-rule for Palestinians, including Palestinian elections, during a five-year period leading to a "permanent solution." [25] March 26, 1979: Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty: Israel and Egypt sign a treaty which calls for both nations to demilitarize the Sinai Peninsula; for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 border, giving up military bases, settlements, roads and the Sinai oil fields; and for Egypt to 'normalize' relations with Israel. Other Arab countries attack the agreement, and Sadat is assassinated by Muslim extremists in 1981. Nevertheless, the treaty holds. [26] Sept. 17, 1978: The Camp David Accords: After 12 days of closed negotiations between the Israelis and Egyptians at Camp David, the two delegations sign the Camp David Accords. This is made up of two sections: the first creates a framework for autonomous rule by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; the second deals with the future of peace between Israel and Egypt, calling for a peace treaty to be agreed upon within three months that will include a full Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. [27] Nov. 19, 1977: In response to an invitation by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat becomes the first Arab leader to travel to Israel and discuss the prospects of peace between the two nations. [28] Footnotes: http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.3909089 The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency. Board of Advisors: Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), Sen. Ben Cardin (MD), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA), Sen. Tom Coburn (OK), Sen. Norm Coleman (MN), Sen. Susan Collins (ME), Sen. Judd Gregg (NH), Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), Sen. Ben Nelson (NE), Sen. Gordon Smith (OR), Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), Sen. Ron Wyden (OR), Rep. Rob Andrews (NJ), Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV), Rep. Tom Davis (VA), Rep. Eliot Engel (NY), Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ), Rep. Jon Porter (NV), Rep. John Sarbanes (MD), Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ), Rep. Brad Sherman (CA), Rep. Joe Wilson (SC), Actor and Director Ron Silver