Category: Study Guide

Link:   Revised Script for the Production at the University of La Verne including line referenced footnotes.


Link to article “Jenin, War Crimes, and the Necessity of a Palestinian State by Maryam Nazie:

Link to article “Powell: No signs of Jenin massacre as yet”:

Link to article “Mr Powell must see for himself what Israel inflicted on Jenin,” by Robert Fisk:

Robert Fisk: Mr Powell must see for himself what Israel inflicted on Jenin…p?story=284647

Robert Fisk: Mr Powell must see for himself what Israel inflicted on Jenin
The credibility of US policy on the conflict has been shattered
14 April 2002
Why doesn’t Colin Powell go to Jenin? What has happened to the world’s moral compass – indeed to the United States – when America’s most famous ex-general, the Secretary of State of the most powerful country on earth, on a supposedly desperate mission to stop the bloodshed in the Middle East, fails to grasp what is taking place in front of his nose? The stench of decaying corpses is wafting out of the Palestinian city. The Israeli army is still keeping the Red Cross and journalists from seeing the evidence of the mass killings that have taken place there. “Hundreds” – on Israel’s own admission – have died, including civilians. Why, for God’s sake, can’t Mr Powell do the decent thing and demand an explanation for the extraordinary, sinister events that have taken place in Jenin?

Instead, after joshing with Ariel Sharon after his arrival in Jerusalem on Friday, Mr Powell is playing games, demanding that Yasser Arafat condemn Friday’s bloody suicide bombing in Jerusalem (total, six dead and 65 wounded) while failing to utter more than a word of “concern” for the infinitely more terrible death toll in Jenin. Is Mr Powell frightened of the Israelis? Does he really have to debase himself in this way? Does he think that meeting Arafat, or refusing to do so, takes precedence over the enormous humanitarian tragedy and slaughter that has overwhelmed the Palestinians? Is President Bush – whose demand that Ariel Sharon withdraw his troops from the West Bank has been blandly ignored – so gutless, so cynical, as to allow this charade to continue? For this is the endgame, the very final proof that the United States is no longer morally worthy of being a Middle East peacemaker.

Even for one who has witnessed so much duplicity in the Middle East, it is a shock to reflect on the events of the past nine days. Let’s just remember, as the Americans would say, “the facts”. Almost two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council, with the active participation and support of the United States, demanded an immediate end to Israel’s reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza. President Bush insisted that Mr Sharon should follow the advice of “Israel’s American friends” and – because our own Mr Blair was with the President at the time – of “Israel’s British friends”, and withdraw. “When I say withdraw, I mean it,” Mr Bush snapped three days later. But of course, it’s now clear that he meant nothing of the kind.

Instead, he sent Mr Powell off on his “urgent” mission of peace, a journey to Israel and the West Bank that would take the Secretary of State an incredible eight days – just enough time, Mr Bush presumably thought, to allow his “good friend” Mr Sharon to finish his latest bloody adventure in the West Bank. Supposedly unaware that Israel’s chief of staff, Shoal Mofaz, had told Mr Sharon that he needed at least eight weeks to “finish the job” of crushing the Palestinians, Mr Powell wandered off around the Mediterranean, dawdling in Morocco, Spain, Egypt and Jordan before finally washing up in Israel on Friday morning. If Washington firefighters took that long to reach a blaze, the American capital would long ago have turned to ashes. But of course, the purpose of Mr Powell’s idleness was to allow enough time for Jenin to be turned to ashes. Mission, I suppose, accomplished.

As Israel’s indisciplined soldiery yesterday continued to hide their deeds from the outside world by preventing the Red Cross, aid workers, ambulances and journalists from entering the rubble of Jenin, Mr Powell was sitting idly by in Israel, calling for the “utmost restraint” from an army that has not yet finished filling the mass graves of Jenin. That he should see a visit to Yasser Arafat – the grotesque, corrupt old man of Ramallah – as the make-or-break issue of his “peacemaking” shows just how skewed Mr Powell’s morality has become. Mr Arafat’s advisers (let’s not give any credit to the would-be “martyr-chairman” of the Palestinian Authority for this) shrewdly announced that it is for Mr Powell to condemn the killings in Jenin, for Mr Arafat could be expected to condemn the vicious suicide bombing in Jerusalem on Friday. And even though Mr Arafat mouthed the relevant words of contrition and condemnation yesterday afternoon, it makes little difference.

All last week, while Mr Sharon’s soldiers were running amok in Jenin, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was playing the role of Mr Sharon’s point man in Washington. When Israel announced that its army was pulling out of three tiny West Bank villages – so tiny that no one had ever heard of them before – Mr Fleischer announced that this was “a step in the right direction”. Then by Friday morning, when even the most dimwitted observer had grasped that something was terribly wrong in Jenin, Mr Fleischer was telling us that Sharon was “a man of peace”. How much longer, one wonders, could this nonsense continue?

Of course, the Palestinians – or whoever directs the sepulchral, nightmarish campaign of suicide bombing, for it surely cannot be the preposterous Mr Arafat – are going for the jugular. The Al Aqsa Brigades or Hamas or Islamic Jihad clearly intend to ensure that Mr Sharon’s ruthless operation fails (the Israeli reoccupation, after all, was supposed to be preventing these wicked Palestinian crimes) and to ensure that Mr Powell is made to look impotent. They seem certain to accomplish both goals. The Palestinian Authority, to all intents and purposes, has for now ceased to exist. That was surely one of Mr Sharon’s intentions. And Mr Powell’s weakness, his failure of nerve, his cowardice, are now likely to set off an Israeli-Palestinian war even more terrible than what we have witnessed so far.

But let’s pause for a quick journey down memory lane; to September 1982, when Ariel Sharon was “rooting out the network of terror” in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut. Before sending Israel’s murderous Phalangist militia allies into the camps, Mr Sharon told the world that the Palestinians had assassinated the Phalangist leader, Bashir Gemayel. This was totally untrue, but the Phalange believed him. And evidence is now emerging in Beirut that, long after the Americans had called for Israel to withdraw the killers from the camp, the Israeli army, commanded by then Defence Minister Sharon, handed more than 1,000 survivors over to those same murderers to be slaughtered over the following two weeks. This, primarily, is why Mr Sharon is so worried by the attempts to indict him for war crimes in Brussels.

Hasn’t Mr Powell glanced through the State Department archives for 1982? Hasn’t he read what Mr Sharon said back then, the same ranting about “terror networks” and “rooting out terror” that he employs today? A lexicon which Mr Powell himself is now enthusiastically using? Has he forgotten that the Israeli Kahan commission held Mr Sharon “personally responsible” for the massacre of those 1,700 civilians? Does Mr Powell really think that Jenin, albeit on a smaller scale, is much different? Even if we dismiss all the Palestinian claims of civilian butchery, extrajudicial executions and the wholesale destruction of thousands of homes, what on earth does he think the Israelis are hiding in Jenin? Why doesn’t he go and look?

Yes, the Palestinians’ suicide campaign is immoral, unforgivable, insupportable. One day, the Arabs – never ones to look in the mirror when it comes to their own crimes – will have to acknowledge the sheer cruelty of their tactics. They have not done this so far. But since the Israelis never attempted to confront the immorality of shooting to death child stone-throwers in the early days of the intifada or the evil of their reckless death squads who went around murdering Palestinians on their wanted list, along with the usual clutch of women and kids who got in the way, is this any wonder?

In the annals of war, the conflict in the Middle East has reached a new apogee, but the story of the United States’ involvement in the Middle East will never be the same again. Thanks to Mr Powell, President Bush and Mr Sharon, America’s credibility has been shattered. Israel, it turns out, does indeed run US policy in the region. The Secretary of State sings from the Israeli songbook. So when, oh when, will the Europeans screw their courage to the sticking-place and become the peacemakers of the Middle East?

Link to “Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?” by Ray McGovern:

Link to “Colin Powell Biography”:

Link to Article “The Case Against Colin Powell” By Christopher Hitchens:

Link to Esquire Article by Charles Pierce:


Link to Article “Behind Colin Powell’s Legend” — My Lai By Robert Parry & Norman Solomon:

Wikipedia page:’%C3%A9tat

Coup d’état[edit]

Despite enjoying support by the majority of Haitians, the Washington Post informed their readers that regime change was looming on 21 November 2003: “Aristide has pushed with mixed success a populist agenda of higher minimum wages, school construction, literacy programs, higher taxes on the rich and other policies that have angered an opposition movement run largely by a mulatto elite that has traditionally controlled Haiti’s economy.”[16] In the three years leading up to the coup, the nation’s already moribund economy further deteriorated and the government ground to a halt as the opposition refused to participate in elections.[17]

The International Republican Institute, a nonprofit political group backed by powerful Republicans close to the Bush administration funded opposition to Aristide. For six years leading up to the coup, the I.R.I. conducted a $3 million party-building program in Haiti, training Aristide’s political opponents, uniting them into a single bloc and, according to a former U.S. ambassador there, encouraging them to reject internationally sanctioned power-sharing agreements in order to heighten Haiti’s political crisis.[18] “[Aristide] was espousing change in Haiti, fundamentalpopulist change,” said Robert Maguire, a Haiti scholar. “Right away, he was viewed as a threat by very powerful forces in Haiti.” President Aristide promised not only to give voice to the poor in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, but also to raise the minimum wage and force businesses to pay taxes. He rallied supporters with heated attacks on the United States, a tacit supporter of past dictatorships and a major influence in Haitian affairs. The anti-Aristide message had currency around Washington. Mr. Einaudi, the veteran diplomat, recalled attending the I.R.I.’s 2001 fund-raising dinner and being surrounded by a half-dozen Haitian businessmen sounding a common cry: “We were foolish to think that we could do anything with Aristide. That it was impossible to negotiate with him. That it was necessary to get rid of him.” [19]

In September 2003, Amiot Metayer was found dead, his eyes shot out and his heart cut out, most likely the result of machete-inflicted wounds. He was, prior to his death, the leader of the Gonaives gang known as “The Cannibal Army.” After his death, his brother Buteur Metayer swore vengeance against those he felt responsible for Amiot’s death—namely, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Buteur took charge of the Cannibal Army and promptly renamed it the National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti.[citation needed] On 5 February 2004, this rebel group seized control of Haiti’s fourth-largest city, Gonaïves, marking the beginning of a minor revolt against Aristide. During their sack of the city, they burned the police station and looted it for weapons and vehicles, which they used to continue their campaign down the coast. By 22 February, the rebels had captured Haiti’s second-largest city, Cap-Haïtien. As the end of February approached, rebels threatened to take the capital, Port-au-Prince, fueling increasing political unrest and the building of barricades throughout the capital.[20] Haitians fled their country on boats, seeking to get to the United States.[21] After a three-week rebellion, Aristide involuntarily[22][23] left Haiti on a US plane accompanied by US security personnel[22][23] as the rebels took over the capital[24] and was flown without[22] knowledge of his route and destination, via Antigua to Bangui, Central African Republic.[25]

Many international politicians, including members of the U.S. congress and the Jamaican Prime Minister, expressed concern that the United States had interfered with Haiti’s democratic process by removing Aristide with excessive force. According to Rep. Maxine Waters D-California, Mildred Aristide called her at her home at 6:30 am to inform her “the coup d’etat has been completed”, and Jean-Bertrand Aristide said the U.S. Embassy in Haiti’s chief of staff came to his house to say he would be killed “and a lot of Haitians would be killed” if he refused to resign immediately and said he “has to go now.”[1] Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York expressed similar words, saying Aristide had told him he was “disappointed that the international community had let him down” and “that he resigned under pressure” – “As a matter of fact, he was very apprehensive for his life. They made it clear that he had to go now or he would be killed.”[1] When asked for his response to these statements Colin Powell said that “it might have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so we don’t make a difficult situation that much more difficult” and he alleged that Aristide “did not democratically govern or govern well”.[1] Jamaican Prime Minister P. J. Patterson released a statement saying “we are bound to question whether his resignation was truly voluntary, as it comes after the capture of sections of Haiti by armed insurgents and the failure of the international community to provide the requisite support. The removal of President Aristide in these circumstances sets a dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments anywhere and everywhere, as it promotes the removal of duly elected persons from office by the power of rebel forces.”[1]

Link to Article: