The campaign against Caterpillar continues to gain steam. Following the recent Presbyterian General Assembly where the church denounced Caterpillar for its ongoing involvement in "obstacles to a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine," Larry Cohler-Esses and Josh Nathan-Kazis report for the Forward:
“Caterpillar is connected to everything that is connected to the land,” said Sydney Levy, director of campaigns for Jewish Voice for Peace, which has been active in the opposition to Caterpillar. “It’s connected to home demolition, it’s connected to building the wall, to building settlements.” Levy’s reference to the wall referred to the separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank that at points cuts deeply into the occupied territory and separates villagers from their farms.
In a statement sent to the Forward, the company strongly defended its sales to Israel.
“Understandably, Caterpillar cannot monitor the use of every piece of its equipment around the world,” the statement said. “However, we recognize the responsibility companies have to encourage the constructive use of their products. To that end, we do not condone the illegal or immoral use of any Caterpillar equipment, and consistent with Caterpillar’s Worldwide Code of Conduct, we expect our customers to use our products in [ways] consistent with human rights and the requirements of international humanitarian law.”
Asked how those expectations square with Israel’s use of Caterpillar bulldozers for purposes cited by the State Department as human rights problems, the company, in a follow-up statement, stressed: “The Caterpillar products used by the Israeli government are sold as part of a U.S.-Government sponsored program. It is best for governments to work to resolve issues such as the long-standing dispute in the Middle East, rather than having companies like Caterpillar become involved in trying to resolve such matters.”
Peter Rosenblum, a professor of human rights law at Columbia University Law School, doubted this would satisfy the concerns of Caterpillar’s critics.
“As long as [a product] is not inherently dangerous the issue would typically end there,” he said, but added: “At the point you become the sole supplier, the known supplier, the company counted on for that purpose … in what is one of the ugliest stories in occupation — legal arguments aren’t going to get them out of the problem.”
