📅 Mar 11, 2012 REDACTED

Re:

From: Jeffrey Epstein

n000000000000..can we do it tom000rw early can i do anything ? On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:18 AM, [ ] e@ [ ] wrote: Good morning, I hope you woke up better then me, have a headache and sore throat.. May be <u>better if we meet tomorrow.,</u>

n000000000000..can we do it tom000rw early can i do anything ?

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:18 AM, [ ] e@ [ ] wrote:
Good morning, I hope you woke up better then me, have a headache and sore throat.. May be <u>better if we meet tomorrow.,</u>

📅 Mar 23, 2012

(no subject)

From: Fran

To: Jeffrey Epstein

anyone lucky? ********** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to <u>jecvaca

anyone lucky?

**********

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to <u>jecvacation@gmail.com,</u> and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

📅 Mar 23, 2012

(no subject)

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Karina Shulia

Don't worry Sorry for all the typos. Sent from my iPhone

Don't worry

Sorry for all the typos. Sent from my iPhone

📅 Mar 8, 2012 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Jeffrey Epstein

the email you showed me last night was also after months of an explicit agreement ( you telling me you decided thatthough you had raised the sex involvment previously you decided that things as they were fine and specifilay said so ),Idi everything i could to enhance your career Rife. then you broke our agreement, gave me an ultimatum, one week before a trip that had been planned for months, and left me without viable alternatives . My trip was made extremely difficult by your as you put it ( I

the email you showed me last night was also after months of an explicit agreement ( you telling me you decided thatthough you had raised the sex involvment previously you decided that things as they were fine and specifilay said so ),Idi everything i could to enhance your career Rife.

then you broke our agreement, gave me an ultimatum, one week before a trip that had been planned for months, and left me without viable alternatives . My trip was made extremely difficult by your as you put it ( I changed my mind).. Even after that , as always I try to give you another opportunity as i think your flying is admirable and important for your future„ I made it crustal clear that , as i just had another run in with your change of mind/ moodiness that i would not accept , any whatsever excuse for another bad mood, etc. you point to your email where you ask that i be frinedly and not cold , ignoring once again your actions in making my africa trip difficult, ( though i met face to face with you to try to explain , hear you out, . ) . I again reiiterated that i was done with excuses / i ve heard them all.. you couldn't help yourself , ( i understand that ). you couldn't control yourself ( i understand that ).. but I also have made it clear that I have only good feelings towards you but want no more of your attitudes , moods. neagtivity, in a nasty tone you told me you didn't know the girls name,nor did you care. I told you that i thought you should leave the island as early as possible , but you stayed until 10 . I was surprised to see you , as i had hoped you would have spent time with larry as i requested at the hangar. I have no advantage whatsoever in letting you ever fly me again. In that regard , ( flying , you arc easily replacable ). I am willing out of a sense of loyalty , to let you fly, but will accept not one ioata of a problem , a proboem that i will not have if anyone else is in the co pilot seat. Your attempt to explain to me for the umpteenth time why you again feel justified, fell on and will continue to fall on deaf ears. your question re obedience or originality , is a binary question that is not well posed. I tried to be a good friend„ you decided to give me a take it or leave it after months of agreement on a trip. I do not hold it against you. I will let you fly , If you choose not to , that is also ok. I will remain as friendly to you as you are to me.

📅 Mar 2, 2012

Re: charter PBI-STT

From: jeffrey epstein

To: Richard Kahn

Yes Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Richard Kahn ◄ wrote: since we are out of funds on our JETPASS card we will have to buy 25 more hours on either a hawker 400 or hawker 800 i can attempt persuade them to allow us to just pay for this trip and not buy card if this is what you desire Richard Kahn HBRK Associates Inc. 301 East 66th Street, Suite 10F New York, NY 10065 On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:53 PM, jeffrey epstein wrote: What does that mean ? Bolke soun

Yes

Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Richard Kahn ◄ wrote:

since we are out of funds on our JETPASS card we will have to buy 25 more hours on either a hawker 400 or hawker 800

i can attempt persuade them to allow us to just pay for this trip and not buy card if this is what you desire

Richard Kahn
HBRK Associates Inc.
301 East 66th Street, Suite 10F
New York, NY 10065

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:53 PM, jeffrey epstein wrote:

What does that mean ? Bolke sounds right

Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Richard Kahn <a> > wrote:

Price is correct from Flight Options however they will require us to buy a JETPASS card

Richard Kahn
HBRKAssociates Inc.
301 East 66th Street, Suite 10F
<u>New York. NY 10065</u>

On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:56 PM, wrote:

<u>NY 10065</u> EFTA R1_00224885
EFTA01840306

Jeffrey,
here is what I know so far regards to PBI - STT,,,,still working it, these are straight charters, dead head is hard for that routing,.
Hawker 800 $17,200.00 (Tommy Mortolla's charter guy) discounted from $19,500.00
LearJet 35 $15,100.00
Waiting on Darren Rothell's LearJet 60 price from a friend,.(one you took to NY a year ago),.
Rich Kahn's deal appears to be best rate in BeachJet $13,900.00

Rich pls confirm the price is correct ?

thx.,
Larry

EFTA R1_00224886
EFTA01840307

📅 Mar 14, 2012 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: jeffrey epstein

Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:17 PM, ██████████ <████████████████████> wrote: asi agreed with him i will meet him at 8pm please give me the code downstairs? number of the building 22? Best regards,

Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:17 PM, ██████████ <████████████████████> wrote:

asi agreed with him i will meet him at 8pm please give me the code downstairs? number of the building 22?

Best regards,

📅 Mar 4, 2012 REDACTED

Re:

From: Unknown

To: jeffrey epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Well if you ever want to talk Sent from my iPhone On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:55 PM, jeffrey epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: Long story Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:32 PM, ████ <██████████> wrote: I don't know. Thanks for the suggestions. How are you doing?

Well if you ever want to talk

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:55 PM, jeffrey epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

Long story

Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:32 PM, ████ <██████████> wrote:

I don't know. Thanks for the suggestions. How are you doing?

📅 Mar 5, 2012 REDACTED

Re:

From: ████████

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

yes, there is one in addition to Karynas. I will tell ████ it's OK for her to use one. On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote: > is that is addtion to ████ that karina is now going to use? if so its ok On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM, █████████ <███████████████████████> wrote: > What should I tell about using an apt from March 9-12th. There is a free apt for her if you are OK with her using one.

yes, there is one in addition to Karynas. I will tell ████ it's OK for her to use one.

On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote:

> is that is addtion to ████ that karina is now going to use? if so its ok

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM, █████████ <███████████████████████> wrote:

> What should I tell about using an apt from March 9-12th. There is a free apt for her if you are OK with her using one.

📅 Mar 7, 2012 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Jeffrey Epstein

zorro list tomorrow or thurs , well, stucco, phone, staff,etc

zorro list tomorrow or thurs , well, stucco, phone, staff,etc

📅 Mar 6, 2012

(no subject)

From: Nicholas L.Ribis

To: Jeffrey Epstein

Any interest in what I sent u — call when u can

Any interest in what I sent u — call when u can

📅 Mar 9, 2012

Re: B727

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Lvjet

yes On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Lvjet wrote: Jeffrey, I have not spoken to Don Bass since the deal with Qatar,,,,is it ok to email Don and let him know the Boeing has completed the C check and is back in service? thx Larry

yes

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Lvjet wrote:

Jeffrey,

I have not spoken to Don Bass since the deal with Qatar,,,,is it ok to email Don and let him know the Boeing has completed the C check and is back in service?

thx
Larry

📅 Mar 15, 2012

lesely coordinate.

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Martin Nowak

sunday,, 15 th ted koptechk, placebo,george church. , howard gardner. brian boyd for dinner, rosovsky,, invite seth lloyd, try steve wolfram, The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you

sunday,, 15 th ted koptechk, placebo,george church. , howard gardner. brian boyd for dinner, rosovsky,, invite seth lloyd, try steve wolfram,

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevaCatiOn@gmail con),and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

📅 Mar 8, 2012 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Jeffrey Epstein

we should think about you moving bu end of may ********** The information contained in this communication is EFTA R1_00224906 EFTA01840315 confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please not

we should think about you moving bu end of may ********** The information contained in this communication is

EFTA R1_00224906
EFTA01840315

confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to <u>jeevacation@gmail.com,</u> and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

📅 Mar 8, 2012 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Jeffrey Epstein

june also iok„ don't stress. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, wrote: Certainly — I will start packing up my things and will try to be out by mid-May at the latest. Thank you again, Jeffrey. I hope to repay you one day for all of your kindness over the years. Thank you!!! Much Love, Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you

june also iok„ don't stress.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, wrote:

Certainly — I will start packing up my things and will try to be out by mid-May at the latest.

Thank you again, Jeffrey. I hope to repay you one day for all of your kindness over the years. Thank you!!!

Much Love,

Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

📅 Mar 2, 2012 REDACTED

Re:

From: jeffrey epstein

Yes Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:55 PM <u>yike®yrke.tv</u> wrote: Sure shall I email you during the day when I know I will be done with work? From: Jeffrey Epstein <u><jecvacation@gmail.com></u> Date: Fri 2 <u>Mar 2012</u> 09:44:17 -0500 To: Subject: can we speak tomrorw " skype? *************************************** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, a

Yes

Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:55 PM <u>yike®yrke.tv</u> wrote:

Sure shall I email you during the day when I know I will be done with work?

From: Jeffrey Epstein <u><jecvacation@gmail.com></u>
Date: Fri 2 <u>Mar 2012</u> 09:44:17 -0500
To:
Subject:

can we speak tomrorw " skype?

***************************************

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to <u>jeevacation@gmail.com</u> and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

**************

<u>EFTA R1_00224908</u>
EFTA01840317

📅 Mar 21, 2012 REDACTED

March 19 update

From: Office of Terje Rod-Larsen

19 March, 2012

EFTA_R1_00224911
EFTA01840318

Article I.

The National Interest

<u>Israel's Gift to Iran</u>

<u>Marvin G. Weinbaum</u>

March 19, 2012 -- Are Iran's leaders rational actors? This question matters when justifying any decision by Israel to preempt Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. An Iranian regime seen as driven to destroy the Jewish state has to be dealt with differently than one whose objectives are mediated by calculations of costs and benefits. Deterrents that would be

EFTA_R1_00224912
EFTA01840319

normally expected to restrain a state would not work with an irrational Iran. But if the Islamic republic, for all its bluster, in fact carefully weighs its policies and values regime survival, then threats alone could succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions—and presumably this Iran would allot high priority to avoiding armed attack on its homeland. But could the same rationally thinking Iranian leadership instead be welcoming a military strike on the nation's soil? Iran's more provocative statements and actions in recent months offer strong evidence that some influential policy makers see an attack on the country's nuclear assets by Israel or the United States as promising rich dividends. They would like nothing more than the opportunity it offers to shed the country's present international-pariah status and assume the mantle of a victim nation. Massive air attacks against nuclear sites across the country can be counted on to kill or injure hundreds of civilians. Should there be a release of radioactivity that threatens many more deaths, international sympathy for Iran would increase dramatically. Iran's leaders can look forward to angry demonstrations erupting across the Muslim world. Popular participation would predictably be more massive and potentially violent in this season of the Arab Awakening. The Tehran regime also could enjoy watching political protests fueled by exploding oil prices breaking out across Europe. The hard fight for economic sanctions against Iran would, in all probability, fall apart. UN resolutions of condemnation would certainly be expected to follow, votes where the United States could very well be left standing virtually alone in rationalizing the bombings. Even were it only Israeli planes that carried out the raids, Washington and Tel Aviv would be lumped together as aggressors. Iran's leaders well understand that certain

EFTA_R1_00224913
EFTA01840320

governing elites, especially among the Gulf countries, would be pleased to see a preemptive attack that dealt Iran's nuclear ambitions a setback. Yet an Israeli attack offers an opportunity to put Iran's regional rivals on the defense. Were these Arab leaders, some with restive populations, to fail to join the chorus decrying the strike on Iran, they would risk alienating their own citizens. After an attack, the continued presence of American military bases in the Gulf could become untenable. Other regional windfalls can be anticipated by Iran. Already inflamed anti-American public sentiment in Afghanistan and Pakistan undoubtedly would be further stoked by the bombing of Iran. Anxious to have American troops out of its backyard, Iran could count on pressures from all directions for an accelerated U.S. and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan. Fears of a negotiated strategic agreement between Washington and the Karzai government allowing a residual presence of foreign forces would disappear. Opportunities for Iran to expand its already extensive political and economic influence over its neighbor would certainly improve. In Pakistan, with conspiracies about nefarious joint American and Israeli designs already a staple of popular opinion, Iran could take pleasure in witnessing a further blow to Pakistan's relations with the United States and conceivably a genuine divorce. This international political bonanza would be more than matched by an appealing domestic payoff. Notwithstanding the disdain that millions of Iranians have for their Islamic government, the country's fiercely nationalistic public can be counted on to rally behind its leaders to the country's defense. An attack on the homeland could set back chances for the revival of the reformist Green Movement for at least a decade. Even the reformers have been solidly in favor of Iran retaining its nuclear program. Who now at home or abroad

EFTA_R1_00224914
EFTA01840321

would dare question the regime's argument if it decides to build a bomb? And the price to pay for all this good fortune would be minimal. For all that Israel's military operation could hope to accomplish, it would at best delay Iran's eventual building of a nuclear arsenal by a few years. Iran would also have the pleasure of knowing that its elaborate construction program to protect its nuclear assets had given them a high degree of invulnerability. Destruction of any of attacking planes could be hailed as a victory against the aggressor. A rational Iran is likely to refrain from openly retaliating against Israel. Iran's leaders can be expected to forgo any immediate payback in favor of cashing in on their accrued political bounty. Undertaking a direct military response might invite a more general war, drawing in the United States and risking Iran's entire military infrastructure. It would also detract from the country's portrayal of itself as the aggrieved party.

But a measured reaction to an Israeli attack would not preclude any violent response. Iran might encourage Hezbollah and Hamas to act as surrogates and launch rockets against Israel, or it might increase the clandestine stream of weapons it provides to the Afghan Taliban. Meanwhile, many would applaud the Tehran regime for showing restraint. For Iran, a Western-led attack could be a gift that keeps on giving.

Marvin G. Weinbaum is aformer intelligence analystfor Pakistan and Afghanistan in the U.S. Department of State and a current scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute.

Article 2.

EFTA_R1_00224915
EFTA01840322

NYT

<u>Falling In and Out of War</u>

Bill Keller

March 18, 2012 -- WHEN you've been wrong about something as important as war, <u>as I have,</u> you owe yourself some hard thinking about how to avoid repeating the mistake. And if that's true for a mere kibitzing columnist, it's immeasurably more true for those in a position to actually start a war.

So here we are, finally, messily winding down the long war in Afghanistan and simultaneously being goaded toward new military ventures against the regimes in <u>Syria</u> and Iran. Being in the question-asking business, I've been pondering this: What are the right questions the president should ask — and we as his employers should ask — when deciding whether going to war is (a) justified and (b) worth it? Here are five, plus two caveats, and some thoughts about how all this applies to the wars before us.

1. HOW IS THIS OUR FIGHT?

It ought to be the first question we ask. Sometimes the answer is obvious. There is a broad agreement that it was in America's vital national interest in 2001 to go after the homicidal zealots behind the 9/11 attacks on America, and the Afghan regime that hosted them. Whatever you think of how the war was waged or how long it should continue, the going-in was, as the cops say, a righteous shoot.

EFTA R1_00224916
EFTA01840323

Often the American stake is not so clear-cut. We may feel an obligation to defend an ally. (Some allies more than others.) We have been known to fight for our economic interests. We intervene in the name of American values, an elastic rubric that can mean anything from halting a <u>genocide</u> to, in <u>George W. Bush's</u> expansive doctrine, promoting freedom.

Senator John McCain, demanding American air strikes to help rebels topple the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, adopts the Bush "freedom agenda" rationale: by halting suffering and helping overthrow tyranny, we earn some leverage with the victors, improving the odds that Syria will become less hostile to our interests. For a variety of robust dissents, look no further than the conservative Web site National Review Online. There you find the <u>neocon view</u> that intervention is not about fomenting a Syrian democracy; it is about striking at an Islamist, anti-American cabal centered on Iran. You also find the <u>libertarian view</u> that our national interest is best served by staying out of a situation we can only make worse.

Nobody said these would be easy questions.

2. AT WHAT COST?

Judged solely by Question No. 1, there is little difference between <u>Libya,</u> where we helped an inchoate mix of rebels overthrow a brutally oppressive regime, and Syria, where we have so far chosen not to help an inchoate mix of rebels overthrow an even more brutally oppressive regime. The critical difference: Syria is much harder. Libya had weak air defenses deployed along the coastline, easily accessible to Western bombers. Syria's defenses are more lethal, more plentiful and

<u>EFTA R1_00224917</u>
EFTA01840324

spread carpet-bomb a across path in inland and out, population or risk American centers. "We'd pilots have being to shot down by the regime and used as human shields," said John Nagl, a retired Army counterinsurgency expert who teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy. "We'd be killing a lot more people."

Cost-benefit analysis may seem a cold-blooded discipline — you can't put a price on freedom, blah blah blah — but it is inseparable from the question of our national interests. After more than 10 years of war that have bled our treasury of at least $3 trillion, killed or disabled many thousands of our troops, and created the kind of multiple-rotation stress that invites atrocities and desecrations, every incremental commitment has to be weighed against the cost to our economic security and our readiness to face the next real threat.

Karl Eikenberry, who served in Afghanistan both as a military commander and as ambassador, put it this way: "If we do not in the future better align ends, ways and means, historians may find that in the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the United States was compelled to contract its global posture similar to the British when they announced their `East of Suez' policy in the late 1960s."

3. OR WHAT?

Policy makers should — and <u>President Obama</u> mostly has — put a premium on appraising alternatives to war. Most notably, the president has held off an Israeli air assault on Iran's nuclear facilities by mobilizing tough sanctions on Iran's oil and banking industries, and by all but declaring that if Iran gets too close to making <u>nuclear weapons</u> the U.S. will send in the bombs. The <u>sanctions show some signs of working.</u>

<u>EFTA R1_00224918</u>
EFTA01840325

The ultimate "or what" question about Iran is, if sanctions and threats fail, could we live with a nuclear Iran? Could we trust that like every other nuclear state Iran would be deterred from using its weapons by the certain knowledge that a counterstrike would turn Persia into a wasteland? It's worth serious discussion, but while the idea of <u>containment by deterrence is gaining ground in pundit-land,</u> President Obama can't touch it; to do so would undermine the whole effort to halt Iran's program and, not incidentally, would be hazardous to his reelection.

4. AND WHO ELSE?

In these optional wars, it is useful to have company — to enhance our moral authority, to amplify the intelligence, to share the cost, to spread the risk — and to second-guess us. In Libya, we had 17 other nations enforcing a blockade and no-fly zone, Arabs and Turks among them. "Leading from behind" may have been a mockable phrase, but it was a serviceable strategy.

In Syria, no one is volunteering to join us yet.

5. THEN WHAT?

This is the question Robert Gates made a mantra at the Defense Department: What happens next? How does this play out? What are the second-order and third-order effects?

One unintended (but foreseeable) consequence of invading Iraq was that it distracted our attention and energy from the far more important undertaking in Afghanistan. Now one possible consequence of rushing too fast for the exits in Afghanistan — <u>tempting as that may be given the breakdown of Afghan-</u>

EFTA_R1_00224919
EFTA01840326

<u>American trust</u> - is the increased likelihood that a collapsing Afghanistan would spill into a wobbly Pakistan. In Pakistan there are both numerous nuclear weapons and an abundance of rogue fanatics who would not hesitate to use them.

Syria, says Nagl, is another good place to think hard about collateral chaos: "The hard part is not toppling Assad, it's what comes afterwards. Everybody raise your hands if you're up for another occupation of an Islamic country."

My first caveat is public opinion, which no democracy can ignore. Fighting wars is not something you do by poll. Public opinion can be wrong. It lagged behind F.D.R. before <u>World War II;</u> it was riding along enthusiastically with <u>President Bush when he invaded Iraq.</u> But public opinion puts a thumb on the scale. The U.S. used force to stop a genocide in Bosnia, but did not in Rwanda or Darfur — one critical difference being that Americans (and American TV screens) were paying attention to the European slaughter, but not to the African atrocities.

My second caveat is that asking the right questions only works if you are prepared to hear answers you might not like. Sometimes our leaders start with the answers and work backward, fixing the facts to the policy, as the <u>head of Britain's MI6 said of the Potemkin intelligence</u> used to sell the invasion of Iraq. To pick just one example from the no-fact zone of Republican primary season, Rick Santorum, the most hawkish of the Republican candidates on Iran, keeps suggesting that <u>Iran's nuclear program</u> is not under international inspection. It's possible that Iran has hidden away some facility we don't know about, but everything we know about — that is, everything we would bomb if we decided to attack — is monitored by international inspectors.

<u>EFTA_R1_00224920</u>
EFTA01840327

If Iraq taught us nothing else, it should have taught us this: Before you deploy the troops, deploy the fact-checkers.

Article 3.

The Wall Street Journal

<u>Russia's Stake in Syria and Iran</u>

<u>Melik Kaylan</u>

18, 2012 -- Now that Vladimir Putin has allowed the Russian electorate to rubber-stamp him back into power, he can return with redoubled purpose to his consistently regressive interference in world affairs. That nobody is surprised at his obdurate defense of the regimes in Tehran and Damascus speaks volumes. Dictators support dictators, don't they?

At this point Mr. Putin apparently doesn't mind much that anyone should include him in that category. After all, if Putinism could be defined by any single principle, if it had a formula, it would have at its core the "power now people later" approach common to all strongmen. Less than 10 years before he ordered the 2008 invasion of Georgia in order to "protect" the separatist South Ossetians, he "solved" the Chechnya problem by ordering the scorched-earth obliteration of its capital, Grozny, where more civilians were killed than at Sreberniza and Horns combined.

And yet one shouldn't suspect Mr. Putin of sentimentality. He doesn't favor dictators for mere principle's sake. Iron-hard

EFTA R1_00224921
EFTA01840328

strategic calculations underpin his support for the Syria-Iran
axis.

Russia is rebuilding its Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, which allows Moscow to reassert a plausible Mediterranean threat to NATO. Syria also provides Iran with a front line against Israel via Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that too can be a most effective anti-Western arrowhead for Russia. When I covered the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, I learned that a year earlier Israel had stopped providing Tbilisi with antitank and anti-aircraft missiles because the Russians had threatened to supply Hezbollah with the same.

But in the end, the pivotal consideration in Mr. Putin's efforts to re-establish his country's superpower status centers on Iran. Syria is a domino. Without its Syrian ally, Iran would be almost totally isolated and crucially weakened. That Moscow cannot allow.

Why is Iran so central to Mr. Putin's global pretensions? Take a look at the Caspian Sea area map and the strategic equations come into relief. Iran acts as a southern bottleneck to the geography of Central Asia. It could offer the West access to the region's resources that would bypass Russia. If Iran reverted to pro-Western alignment, the huge reserves of oil and gas landlocked in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and the like could flow directly out to the world without a veto from Moscow.

According to an Oct. 16, 2008, Wall Street Journal report, Turkmenistan is "one of the world's hydrocarbon provinces" with enough natural gas to supply Europe's annual needs three times over. Similarly, Kazakhstan's Tengiz oil field is

EFTA R1_00224922
EFTA01840329

considered one of the world's largest. As things stand, these countries depend on Russian pipelines for their national income.

At stake here is not merely the liberation of a vast landmass from the Kremlin's yoke. The damage to Russian leverage would amount to a seismic shift in the global balance of power equal to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

Russia's gas and oil leverage over Turkey, Ukraine and much of Europe would evaporate. The Silk Road countries would finally reclaim their history since it was diverted forcibly toward Moscow in the 19th century. Their nominal post-Soviet independence would become a reality. Perhaps most irksome for Mr. Putin and his kind, large swaths of the non-Russian zone would prosper disproportionately in comparison to neighboring Russian Federation provinces.

After some 12 years in the Kremlin, Mr. Putin has failed to deliver prosperity and a hopeful future to much of his population. In return for their sacrifice, he has fed them inflated dreams of empire and superpower nostalgia which he has deliberately identified with his own judoka personality cult.

This is not a scenario in which free peoples voluntarily choose their destinies and alliances. They bow to what's good for them as determined by a kind of paternal supreme power.

If the mystique of Russian hegemony were to deflate, if formerly subject colonies suddenly rose to stability and affluence—as is happening in Georgia—Mr. Putin's threadbare illusionism would fall apart entirely. He would never recover from the triumph of freedom in Syria and Iran.

EFTA_R1_00224923
EFTA01840330

Mr. Kaylan is a writer in New York.

Article 4.

The Daily Beast

<u>China's Great Leap Backward</u>

Niall Ferguson

March 19, 2012 -- "To understand China you have to think in generations," my Chinese friend explained. "And the key is that after 2012 the <u>Cultural Revolution</u> generation will be in charge."

While antiwar protesters clashed with the National Guard on American campuses and Czechs defied the Red Army in the streets of Prague, China had the Cultural Revolution. In some ways it was the ultimate '60s teen rebellion. In other ways it was totalitarianism at its worst: a bloody revolution from above unleashed by one of the 20th century's most ruthless despots.

That it disrupted the lives of a generation is clear. Only consider its effects on the two men poised to inherit the top two positions of president and premier. <u>Xi Jinping</u> was a "princeling," the son of one of Mao Zedong's loyal lieutenants. He was just 15 when his father was arrested on Mao's order. Xi spent the next six years toiling in the countryside of Yanchuan county in central China. <u>Li Keqiang</u> had a similar experience. No sooner had he

EFTA R1_00224924
EFTA01840331

graduated from high school than he was sent to labor in the fields of impoverished Anhui province.

To get an idea of what exactly this means, imagine Barack Obama feeding pigs in Iowa or Mitt Romney mending a tractor in Wisconsin. Except that no American farm could ever match the grinding hardship of a Chinese collective farm.

One of China's leading economists put it to me like this: "The one thing I learned on the collective farm"—which in his case was out west on the Chinese-Soviet border—"was to judge a person's character inside 10 seconds." (As he said this, he gave me a piercing look.) "I also learned what really matters in life: to think freely—and to have friends you can trust."

Generational Civil War: The Cultural Revolution began in the summer of 1966, when posters appeared slamming senior party figures as "takers of the capitalist road." Mao chimed in, expressing his "passionate support" for protesting students, whom he christened the "Red Guards." This was the cue for young people all over China to flock to Beijing, dressed in identical uniforms and brandishing Mao's Little Red Book.

Mao's stated ambition was to remove the capitalist elements that were impeding China's progress. More likely, he intended to implement a ruthless purge of his critics. Yet the Cultural Revolution soon grew into an all-out civil war between the generations.

Not only party officials but also academics were targeted. In the summer of 1966, more than 1,700 people were beaten to death in Beijing alone, including elderly former landlords and their families. Some victims were killed by having boiling water

EFTA R1_00224925
EFTA01840332

poured over them; others were forced to swallow nails.

But it did not take long for the revolution to consume itself. Buried in a dingy corner of Chongqing's Shapingba Park are the bodies of 537 Red Guards from different factions who, after dealing with their teachers, killed each other.

By the end of 1968 it was clear that China was in a state of anarchy. So the Great Helmsman gave the rudder another swing. Now he ordered the "educated youth" to go to the countryside to receive "reeducation" on collective farms. The Red Guards were broken up. The Army reimposed order in the cities. The universities emptied. And a generation of young Chinese exchanged the library for the pigsty.

Revolution Reversion: More than 40 years later, the historian Xu Youyu calls for a "total condemnation" (chedi fouding) of the Cultural Revolution. Yet his is a minority view. If you visit the National Museum of China in Beijing, you will find almost no reference to the Cultural Revolution. When I tried to interview Xu on the subject last August, we were kicked off the campus of the university where he teaches.

Even more remarkable is the evidence of a growing nostalgia for the Cultural Revolution. During my last visit to China, I ate dinner at a themed restaurant where the waitresses dress up like Red Guards and the floorshow features propaganda songs from the period. Incredibly, just 200 yards away from the graves of Cultural Revolution victims in Chongqing, I saw a group of middle-aged women singing some of these songs, including "Chairman Mao Is the Sun That Never Sets."

Until last week, such nostalgia was being encouraged by the

EFTA R1_00224926
EFTA01840333

Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai, who was hoping for promotion to the all-powerful Standing Committee of the Politburo. The strange thing is that in 1966, Bo and his family were imprisoned for five years, after which they were placed in a labor camp for a further five.

China's '60s generation has every reason to remember the years of their youth with bitterness. That many of them feel something more like "Maostalgia" is just a little scary. But even scarier was the headline in the Financial Times on March 15: "Bo Xilai Purged." Just like old times.

Article 5.

NYT

<u>To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements</u>

Peter Bei nart

March 18, 2012 -- TO believe in a democratic Jewish state today is to be caught between the jaws of a pincer.

On the one hand, the Israeli government is erasing the "green line" that separates Israel proper from the <u>West Bank.</u> In 1980, roughly 12,000 Jews lived in the West Bank (excluding East

EFTA_R1_00224927
EFTA01840334

Jerusalem). Today, government subsidies have helped swell that number to more than 300,000. Indeed, many Israeli maps and textbooks no longer show the green line at all.

In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the settlement of Ariel, which stretches deep into the West Bank, "the heart of our country." Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank <u>Palestinians</u> are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.

In response, many Palestinians and their supporters have initiated a global campaign of <u>Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.),</u> which calls not only for boycotting all Israeli products and ending the occupation of the West Bank but also demands the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes — an agenda that, if fulfilled, could dismantle Israel as a Jewish state.

The Israeli government and the B.D.S. movement are promoting radically different one-state visions, but together, they are sweeping the two-state solution into history's dustbin.

It's time for a counteroffensive — a campaign to fortify the boundary that keeps alive the hope of a Jewish democratic state alongside a Palestinian one. And that counteroffensive must begin with language.

Jewish hawks often refer to the territory beyond the green line by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, thereby suggesting that it was, and always will be, Jewish land. Almost everyone

<u>EFTA R1_00224928</u>
EFTA01840335

else, including this paper, calls it the West Bank.

But both names mislead. "Judea and Samaria" implies that the most important thing about the land is its biblical lineage; "West Bank" implies that the most important thing about the land is its relationship to the Kingdom of Jordan next door. After all, it was only after Jordan conquered the territory in 1948 that it coined the term "West Bank" to distinguish it from the rest of the kingdom, which falls on the Jordan River's east bank. Since Jordan no longer controls the land, "West Bank" is an anachronism. It says nothing meaningful about the territory today.

Instead, we should call the West Bank "nondemocratic Israel." The phrase suggests that there are today two Israels: a flawed ethnically-based but genuine nondemocracy democracy beyond within it. the It counters green line efforts and an by Israel's leaders to use the legitimacy of democratic Israel to legitimize the occupation and by Israel's adversaries to use the illegitimacy of the occupation to delegitimize democratic Israel.

Having made that rhetorical distinction, American Jews should seek every opportunity to reinforce it. We should lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America's free-trade deal with Israel. We should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities. Every time an American newspaper calls Israel a democracy, we should urge it to include the caveat: only within the green line.

But a settlement boycott is not enough. It must be paired with an equally vigorous embrace of democratic Israel. We should spend

EFTA R1_00224929
EFTA01840336

money we're not spending on settler goods on those produced within the green line. We should oppose efforts to divest from all Israeli companies with the same intensity with which we support efforts to divest from companies in the settlements: call it Zionist B.D.S.

Supporters of the current B.D.S. movement will argue that the distinction between democratic and nondemocratic Israel is artificial. After all, many companies profit from the occupation without being based on occupied land. Why shouldn't we boycott them, too? The answer is that boycotting anything inside the green line invites ambiguity about the boycott's ultimate goal — whether it seeks to end Israel's occupation or Israel's existence.

For their part, American Jewish organizations might argue that it is unfair to punish Israeli settlements when there are worse human rights offenses in the world and when Palestinians still commit gruesome terrorist acts. But settlements need not constitute the world's worst human rights abuse in order to be worth boycotting. After all, numerous American cities and organizations boycotted Arizona after it passed a draconian <u>immigration</u> law in 2010.

The relevant question is not "Are there worse offenders?" but rather, "Is there systematic oppression that a boycott might help relieve?" That Israel systematically oppresses West Bank Palestinians has been acknowledged even by the former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, who have warned that Israel's continued rule there could eventually lead to a South African-style apartheid system.

EFTA R1_00224930
EFTA01840337

Boycotts could help to change that. Already, prominent Israeli writers like David Grossman, Amos Oz and A. B. Yehoshua have refused to visit the settlement of Ariel. We should support their efforts because persuading companies and people to begin leaving nondemocratic Israel, instead of continuing to flock there, is crucial to keeping the possibility of a two-state solution alive.

Others may object to boycotting settlements near the green line, which will likely be incorporated into Israel in the event of a peace deal. But what matters is not the likelihood that a settler will one day live in territory where all people enjoy the right to citizenship regardless of ethnicity, but the fact that she does not live there yet. (That's why the boycott should not apply to East Jerusalem, which Israel also occupied in 1967, since Palestinians there at least have the ability to gain citizenship, even if they are not granted it by birth.)

If moderate settlers living near the green line resent being lumped in with their more ideologically driven counterparts deep in occupied territory, they should agitate for a two-state solution that would make possible their incorporation into democratic Israel. Or they should move.

As I write this, I cringe. Most settlers aren't bad people; many poor Sephardic, Russian and ultra-Orthodox Jews simply moved to settlements because government subsidies made housing there cheap. More fundamentally, I am a committed Jew. I belong to an Orthodox synagogue, send my children to Jewish school and yearn to instill in them the same devotion to the Jewish people that my parents instilled in me. Boycotting other Jews is a painful, unnatural act. But the alternative is worse.

EFTA_R1_00224931
EFTA01840338

When Israel's founders wrote the country's declaration of independence, which calls for a Jewish state that "ensures complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex," they understood that Zionism and democracy were not only compatible; the two were inseparable.

More than six decades later, they look prophetic. If Israel makes the occupation permanent and Zionism ceases to be a democratic project, Israel's foes will eventually overthrow Zionism itself.

We are closer to that day than many American Jews want to admit. Sticking to the old comfortable ways endangers Israel's democratic future. If we want to effectively oppose the forces that threaten Israel from without, we must also oppose the forces that threaten it from within.

<u>Peter Beinart,</u> a professor at the City University of New York and the editor of the Daily Beast blog <u>Zion Square,</u> is the author of <u>"The Crisis of Zionism."</u>

Article 6.
The Economist

<u>EFTA_R1_00224932</u>
EFTA01840339

<u>Morocco's reforms</u>

Mar 17th 2012 -- ON HIS drive home from work Morocco's prime minister, Abdelilah Benkirane, stopped by a mob of angry graduates demanding jobs. "We voted for you, and you send the police to beat and arrest us," they cried. Mr Benkirane apologised and promised that any police officers who broke the law would be punished. Some of the graduates clapped.

Something is changing in Morocco. The stuffy feudalism that made the kingdom a museum piece is lifting. New construction includes a web of motorways, double-decker trains that run on time and the Mediterranean's largest port. Unlike other Arab autocrats who dithered when uprisings erupted last spring, King Mohammed VI unveiled a new constitution within weeks. This promised to transfer real (though not all) powers to a freely and fairly elected government. Within a year he accepted an electoral triumph by the Justice and Development Party (or PJD, after its French initials), a mildly Islamist group.

The PJD has discarded its predecessors' hierarchical ways. Its leader, Mr Benkirane, lives at home with two guards at his door, not in a government-issued palace with liveried servants. At his swearing-in he gave the king a perfunctory peck on the shoulder, not a full bow-and-kiss on the hand. Mr Benkirane speaks the street dialect of his people rather than the formal Arabic that many Moroccans struggle to grasp. His ministers hold meetings in cafés and travel by train.

Before his death in 1999, Hassan II, Mohammed VI's father,

EFTA R1_00224933
EFTA01840340

dabbled with reform, even appointing as prime minister a leftist he had once sentenced to death. But whereas that proved largely a smokescreen for continued royal rule, Mr Benkirane has the power to choose his own ministers, present his own budget and promote his own legislation. Nor is the makhzen, Morocco's royal court, quite the brute it was in Hassan II's day. Police still induce fear, but less so than elsewhere in the Arab world, where their counterparts' gunfire turned protests into uprisings.

long-entrenched The Islamists elite have that worked they can hard be to trusted. reassure "In Morocco's Egypt and Tunisia the army defends democracy," says a dutiful Mr Benkirane. "In Morocco it's the king." His party has muted its anti-secular rhetoric, to the joy of alcohol distributors. "We are not a morality police," insists a minister. The PJD has placated nervous Western allies, too, especially France. Ministers insist that they will honour a €1.8 billion ($2.4 billion) contract to build a high-speed train line, despite having once attacked it for rewarding Morocco's former colonial masters.

The Islamists may have a harder task persuading their own voters. No other force could have revived legitimacy in the kingdom's antiquated system, but despite Mr Benkirane's personal popularity, sceptics abound. "The switch in power is of people not policies," gripes a trade unionist. "Nothing will change."

Fortunately for Mr Benkirane, his opponents are lacklustre. Efforts to build an alliance of disgruntled groups have crumbled. Adl wal-Ihsan, a more radical Islamist party that rejects the monarchy, withdrew from protests last month, deflating the remnants.

EFTA_R1_00224934
EFTA01840341

Yet even as the formal opposition has fizzled, an informal one is rising. In the rural areas, where the poorest half of Morocco's 30m people live, discontent periodically boils over. Curfews, water-cannon and arrests have failed to prevent clashes from engulfing two northern towns. Protests over utility prices are acquiring a secessionist edge. A looming drought will only make matters worse.

The fiscal situation is also deteriorating. Until now the economy has weathered Europe's doldrums remarkably well. But the previous government drained foreign reserves into salary and subsidy increases, so there is little left to give. The return of thousands of jobless workers from depressed Europe and lawless Libya has further shrunk the cushion.

The police struggle to claw back lost authority after a year of slippage. In cities peddlers spill into the streets, clogging the traffic; crime is rising. The security forces have begun demolishing some of an estimated 44,000 homes built illegally over the past year by Moroccans exploiting the vacuum; the attempted show of strength risks provoking a backlash.

It would have been easy for the government to blame the ancien regime for hobbling their prospects. Refreshingly, the Islamists say the buck stops with them. They promise transparency and a fairer distribution of wealth. They have published a list of bus companies granted prime intercity routes by unexplained orders from above. Next they may shame army generals who have long grabbed maritime fishing licences to feather their nests.

The campaign may have its limits. Mr Benkirane's coalition is full of ministers from the previous government he has hitherto

EFTA R1_00224935
EFTA01840342

criticised for nepotism and waste. It will be hard to fight the old order while sharing power with it.

Failure could be costly. A new book, "Le Roi Predateur ("The Predator King"), published in France, describes how the king has quintupled his wealth in his 11 years on the throne, with the secretive makhzen continuing to hold large, lucrative chunks of the economy. Despite a ban, the book has gone viral online. Café chatter contrasts Mohammad VI's surfeit of palaces with the hovels his forces knock down. Yet Morocco's ruler is less cursed and more kissed than his fellow Arab kings. Sacrificing a few of his greedier courtiers should help him keep it that way.

Article 7.

NYT

<u>Your Brain on Fiction</u>

Annie Murphy Paul

March 17, 2012 -- AMID the squawks and pings of our digital devices, the old-fashioned virtues of reading novels can seem faded, even futile. But new support for the value of fiction is arriving from an unexpected quarter: neuroscience.

Brain scans are revealing what happens in our heads when we read a detailed description, an evocative metaphor or an emotional exchange between characters. Stories, this research is showing, stimulate the brain and even change how we act in life.

EFTA R1_00224936
EFTA01840343

Researchers have long known that the "classical" language regions, like Broca's area and Wernicke's area, are involved in how the brain interprets written words. What scientists have come to realize in the last few years is that narratives activate many other parts of our brains as well, suggesting why the experience of reading can feel so alive. Words like "lavender," "cinnamon" and "soap," for example, elicit a response not only from the language-processing areas of our brains, but also those devoted to dealing with smells.

In a 2006 study published in the journal Neurolmage, researchers in Spain asked participants to read words with strong odor associations, along with neutral words, while their brains were being scanned by a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine. When subjects looked at the Spanish words for "perfume" and "coffee," their primary olfactory cortex lit up; when they saw the words that mean "chair" and "key," this region remained dark. The way the brain handles metaphors has also received extensive study; some scientists have contended that figures of speech like "a rough day" are so familiar that they are treated simply as words and no more. Last month, however, a team of researchers from Emory University reported in Brain & Language that when subjects in their laboratory read a metaphor involving texture, the sensory cortex, responsible for perceiving texture through touch, became active. Metaphors like "The singer had a velvet voice" and "He had leathery hands" roused the sensory cortex, while phrases matched for meaning, like "The singer had a pleasing voice" and "He had strong hands," did not.

Researchers have discovered that words describing motion also stimulate regions of the brain distinct from language-processing

EFTA R1_00224937
EFTA01840344

areas. In a study led by the cognitive scientist Veronique Boulenger, of the Laboratory of Language Dynamics in France, the brains of participants were scanned as they read sentences like "John grasped the object" and "Pablo kicked the ball." The scans revealed activity in the motor cortex, which coordinates the body's movements. What's more, this activity was concentrated in one part of the motor cortex when the movement described was arm-related and in another part when the movement concerned the leg.

The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions are stimulated. Keith Oatley, an emeritus professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto (and a published novelist), has proposed that reading produces a vivid simulation of reality, one that "runs on minds of readers just as computer simulations run on computers." Fiction — with its redolent details, imaginative metaphors and attentive descriptions of people and their actions — offers an especially rich replica. Indeed, in one respect novels go beyond simulating reality to give readers an experience unavailable off the page: the opportunity to enter fully into other people's thoughts and feelings.

The novel, of course, is an unequaled medium for the exploration of human social and emotional life. And there is evidence that just as the brain responds to depictions of smells and textures and movements as if they were the real thing, so it treats the interactions among fictional characters as something like real-life social encounters.

Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada,

EFTA R1_00224938
EFTA01840345

performed an analysis of 86 fMRI studies, published last year in the Annual Review of Psychology, and concluded that there was substantial overlap in the brain networks used to understand stories and the networks used to navigate interactions with other individuals — in particular, interactions in which we're trying to figure out the thoughts and feelings of others. Scientists call this capacity of the brain to construct a map of other people's intentions "theory of mind." Narratives offer a unique opportunity to engage this capacity, as we identify with characters' longings and frustrations, guess at their hidden motives and track their encounters with friends and enemies, neighbors and lovers.

It is an exercise that hones our real-life social skills, another body of research suggests. Dr. Oatley and Dr. Mar, in collaboration with several other scientists, reported in two studies, published in 2006 and 2009, that individuals who frequently read fiction seem to be better able to understand other people, empathize with them and see the world from their perspective. This relationship persisted even after the researchers accounted for the possibility that more empathetic individuals might prefer reading novels. A 2010 study by Dr. Mar found a similar result in preschool-age children: the more stories they had read to them, the keener their theory of mind — an effect that was also produced by watching movies but, curiously, not by watching television. (Dr. Mar has conjectured that because children often watch TV alone, but go to the "parent-children movies films.) with conversations their parents, about they mental may experience states" when more it comes to

Fiction, Dr. Oatley notes, "is a particularly useful simulation

EFTA_R1_00224939
EFTA01840346

because negotiating the social world effectively is extremely tricky, requiring us to weigh up myriad interacting instances of cause and effect. Just as computer simulations can help us get to grips with complex problems such as flying a plane or forecasting the weather, so novels, stories and dramas can help us understand the complexities of social life."

These findings will affirm the experience of readers who have felt illuminated and instructed by a novel, who have found themselves comparing a plucky young woman to Elizabeth Bennet or a tiresome pedant to Edward Casaubon. Reading great literature, it has long been averred, enlarges and improves us as human beings. Brain science shows this claim is truer than we imagined.

Annie Murphy Paul is the author, most recently, of "Origins: How the Nine Months Before Birth Shape the Rest of Our Lives."

EFTA_R1_00224940
EFTA01840347

📅 Mar 7, 2012 REDACTED

Re:

From: Jeffrey Epstein

not aggressive at all.. just an attempt to be precise and clear. some might see the phrase , one plus one is two as an agresssice statment.. little room for ambuguity, question, seems absolute, the t in the word" two" sound harsh, why only one? , who says so, ? can we discuss, it, ? would now work for a call? On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:10 PM, ██████████████████████████ > wrote: Yes, I would like to have that conversation. I'm not sure how to read this email...it comes across as rather aggressive

not aggressive at all.. just an attempt to be precise and clear. some might see the phrase , one plus one is two as an agresssice statment.. little room for ambuguity, question, seems absolute, the t in the word" two" sound harsh, why only one? , who says so, ? can we discuss, it, ? would now work for a call?

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:10 PM, ██████████████████████████ > wrote:

Yes, I would like to have that conversation. I'm not sure how to read this email...it comes across as rather aggressive but I can't believe that's intentional...

<u>From: Jeffre E stein</u> <u><eevacation</u> <u>mail com></u>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 8:09 AM
Subject:

- if you would like to have a conversation as to what i expect . lets set a time.. I tried to be as clear as I could the last time, to no avail.. I wrote three times that at the first inkling of a bad mood, awkward , uncomfortable attitude, It would immmediatly end. you chose to tell me that you felt unwelcome as a justification for just those things„ If you feel capable of being the charming friendly, person you told me you had become„ fine„ if not. lets just call it a day. its your call.. I m willing to give you another chance „ but only one. I have tried to help , and am willing to continue to do so. 1 kept to my word and did nothing sexual or even intimate, you had a reason for violating our agreement that you thought was legitimate, I find no reasons for bad m000ds none whatsoever acceptable anymore. IF you chose to move , I will help with your rent.

📅 Mar 5, 2012 REDACTED

Re:

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: ████████████████████

ok for delta,, On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM, ████████████████████████████ > wrote: There are no business class seats available on the American flight on Saturday from StT to NYC. Delta has Business available that day on a flight leaving at 2:53pm arriving JFK 6:48pm on a 757. I will book this for now so we have something ********** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for

ok for delta,,

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM, ████████████████████████████ > wrote:

There are no business class seats available on the American flight on Saturday from StT to NYC. Delta has Business available that day on a flight leaving at 2:53pm arriving JFK 6:48pm on a 757. I will book this for now so we have something

**********

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to <u>jeevacation@gmail.com</u> and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

EFTA R1_00224943
EFTA01840350

📅 Mar 11, 2012

(no subject)

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Barnaby Marsh

comeearly„ danny will be here at 12 The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to

comeearly„ danny will be here at 12

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to <u>jecvacation@gmail.com,</u> and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

📅 Jan 31, 2012

Re: Rich Cortese...

From: Jeffrey Epstein

To: Lesley Groff

will call On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Lesley Groff wrote: please advise Begin forwarded message: From: Rich Cortese <rcortese@royalisabela.com> Date: January 31, 2012 12:25:29 PM ET To: Lesley Groff Subject: Jeffrey Epstein .?? No longer an interest? Rich *********************************************************** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of

will call

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Lesley Groff wrote:

please advise

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rich Cortese <rcortese@royalisabela.com>
Date: January 31, 2012 12:25:29 PM ET
To: Lesley Groff
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein

.?? No longer an interest?
Rich

***********************************************************

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to icevacation@zmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved