Business and Peace Don’t Mix: Caterpillar’s Role in Israel’s Demolition of Palestinian Homes

By Sherri Muzher

It’s said that “home is where the heart is.” We also acknowledge that “money makes the world go round.” When it comes to Palestinian homeowners in the Israeli-occupied territories, however, it is the latter truism which seems to take precedence for Caterpillar, known around the world for its earthmoving equipment. The Peoria, Illinois-based corporation is Israel’s primary supplier of bulldozers—one of the most destructive weapons in Israel’s arsenal.

A visitor to Caterpillar’s Web site is immediately struck by the corporation’s pride in its 75 years of community service throughout the world. Caterpillar even has a special division devoted to “Social Responsibility.” Its purpose: “Caterpillar is committed to enabling positive and responsible growth around the world, and we believe in the value of social and environmental responsibility.”

Among Caterpillar’s accomplishments has been the preservation of rainforests. Apparently, however, its concern for saving rainforests does not translate into concern for the more than 385,000 olive trees Israeli troops and settlers using Caterpillar equipment have uprooted during the current intifada. This is in addition to the hundreds of Palestinian homes demolished in Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Despite U.S. State Department criticism of such Israeli practices, not to mention compelling photographs and newspaper articles, Caterpillar spokesman Benjamin Cordani maintained, “We do not and cannot base sales on a customer’s intended use for our product. Caterpillar is a global company that provides products and services to companies and governments throughout the world. We follow the U.S. government’s direction on international sales and have a process in place to ensure we follow all laws and guidelines.”

That makes perfectly good business sense, of course—even though it may run counter to the social responsibility on which Caterpillar prides itself. And it is true that there are no U.S. laws pertaining to the export of earthmoving equipment.

“Caterpillar checks the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and other governmental lists of individuals and organizations U.S. companies are forbidden to do business with overseas,” Cordani stated.

An office within the Treasury Department, OFAC enforces economic and trade sanctions against “targeted foreign countries, terrorism-sponsoring organizations and international narcotics traffickers based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.”

According to one OFAC official, many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international directives, and involve close cooperation with U.S. allies.

(The OFAC list of restricted countries is not the only list to which American companies are subject. After consulting the OFAC list, American exporters must then refer to the Department of Commerce, which has its own restrictions.)

How does one try to get a particular country added to the OFAC list? Going through Congress is the first step—although the president must sign off on every case.

While it is unlikely that Israel will be added to any future OFAC list, it doesn’t hurt to raise the issue with one’s local congressperson. That may at least call attention to Israel’s continuing practice of home demolitions. Middle East peace, after all, is in the national interest—a fact of which Americans increasingly are aware as a result of Sept. 11 and the ensuing “war on terrorism.”

Consider sharing some of the following information with elected officials in Washington:

During one of Israel’s home demolition campaigns—morbidly entitled “Operation Enjoyable Song”—more than 32 shelters, housing some 400 people, were demolished April 11, 2001. At the time, it was the worst act of destruction since the al-Aqsa uprising began more than a year ago.

Sadly, home demolitions have been used as a form of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing for many years. Even the Oslo accords represented no reprieve for Israel’s destruction of Palestinians’ homes. In fact, the demolitions accelerated.

The pretext generally has been that the demolished homes were built without permits. Of course, despite its sensitivity to the needs of growing Jewish families and illegal settlements, the Israeli government virtually never grants building permits—which can cost as much as $20,000 and take five years to obtain—to Palestinians, who as a result often must live in severely cramped spaces. In the Middle East’s “only democracy,” the law’s the law.

Interestingly, the majority of Palestinian homes that have been demolished or received demolition orders are situated near existing Jewish settlements or bypass roads. The resulting demolitions conveniently prevent territorial contiguity between Palestinian population centers.

Ironically, in many cases Palestinian homes have been demolished for being built too close to a Jewish structure which did not even exist when the Palestinian home initially was constructed.

While targeting Palestinian homes for destruction, Israel has authorized massive housing construction, tax incentives, roads and related infrastructure for illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. Even as thousands of completed units stand empty, the Israel’s Housing Ministry has authorized more illegal Jewish-only settlements. The ministry admitted that almost a quarter of all units built by the government in the West Bank between 1989 and 1992 never had been occupied.

Palestinian homes also have been demolished as part of the Israeli policy of collective punishment. In fact, in the first four years of the 1988-93 intifada, Israel destroyed 786 homes as reprisal against those who took part in the uprising.

Israeli policy also mandates that the homes of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers be destroyed. Curiously, however, the family home of Yigal Amir, the assassin of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, remains intact.

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids collective punishment, stating that no resident of an occupied territory “may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.”

Aside from legal and moral considerations, however, such tactics simply don’t work. As Secretary of State Colin Powell bluntly and articulately told the Israeli government in July, “When you start knocking down buildings with bulldozers, don’t expect people not to respond to this kind of activity. When you start announcing more settlement activity, this does not create conditions that would cause the other side to be less responsive or less violent.”

Perhaps Caterpillar should consider distinguishing between “earth”-moving and “home”- and “orchard”-moving equipment. Peace on earth, after all, can never result from destroying lives.

Sherri Muzher, a Palestinian-American activist who lives in Michigan, holds a Juris Doctorate in international law.