Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009
Shareholder activists are targeting the manufacturer of the giant bulldozer that Israel uses to demolish Palestinian homes.
May 13, 2004 | Late in the afternoon of March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American college student, put herself in the path of an Israeli army bulldozer that was moving to demolish the home of a Palestinian pharmacist who lived in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah. Either by accident, out of negligence, or on purpose, the Israeli bulldozer driver did not stop, and Corrie was crushed to death under the machine's giant blade.
The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians brings us fresh horrors every day, but few events in the struggle seemed as senseless as what happened to Rachel Corrie. More than a year later, the simplest question about her death is still the most contentious: Who bears responsibility for what happened that day? The question is a test of political allegiance. Depending on your stance, you either blame the Israeli bulldozer operator -- for failing to stop for Corrie -- or blame Corrie herself for engaging in a protest tactic that the Israeli government has repeatedly called dangerous and irresponsible.
But now there's a new potential culprit. In recent months, some critics of Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories have been pointing at another key player in the drama of Corrie's death -- the Caterpillar D9 bulldozer, the unfathomably powerful machine that is the workhorse of the Israeli military, used to demolish hundreds of homes in the Palestinian territories during the past three years. Considering the role of Caterpillar equipment in Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, some critics of Israel are asking, shouldn't we assign some responsibility for Rachel Corrie's death to the American company that manufactured the bulldozer that killed her?
In April, Jewish Voice for Peace, a California grassroots group that advocates an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, and two other organizations sponsored a shareholder resolution asking Caterpillar to reexamine its business with Israel. At the company's annual meeting, stockholders representing only 4 percent of Caterpillar shares favored the resolution, but that percentage met a threshold that allows the groups to reintroduce their resolution next year.
Caterpillar's management responded coolly to the Israel resolution, saying, in a statement, that while the company felt "compassion for all those affected by political strife," it had "neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use" of the equipment it sells.
On one level, Caterpillar's position makes sense: Few sensible businesses are eager to shoulder the burden of monitoring how customers use the products they purchase. Israel, moreover, is using the bulldozers in line with the way they were intended to be used (to tear down structures) -- so if Caterpillar protests Israel's use of its bulldozers, wouldn't it have to do the same for other customers?
But Caterpillar's own "Code of Worldwide Business Conduct" envisions its products contributing to an "environment in which all people can work safely and live healthy, productive lives, now and in the future." Is that the case in Gaza? Advocates of the resolution say that shareholders should be wary that Caterpillar's business with Israel is turning the company into a military contractor, which is not necessarily the image you'd want associated with a company that thinks of itself as a builder of civilian dreams.
The issue thus raises a dilemma for Caterpillar: Is it better for the company's business and its image to stick with Israel, or to pull out of the country? More to the point, does Caterpillar bear any responsibility for how other people use its products? Many on Israel's side, including representatives of the Israeli government, do not think so. But when you ask Cheryl Brodersen, Rachel Corrie's aunt, whether she blames Caterpillar for her niece's death, she says, "Caterpillar knows how those machines are being used. They know the human rights violations are occurring. So do I hold them responsible? They bear some responsibility."
