yeah right, Caterpillar had no idea Israel was using their equipment illegally. Come on guys, just because you don’t like my views doesnt mean you should try and advance such weak arguments simply for the sake of disagreeing with me. At least try and check with B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or the UN before putting your feet in your mouths.
brennen, let’s go with the gun example of yours. it is against the law to sell felons a gun, especially if their crime was gun related. it is not an unknown thing that the D-9’s sold to the IDF are used for home demolitions in the occupied territories. If Smith & Wesson sold a gun to someone with a criminal record they could (and should) be held responsible for selling them the gun. Well, there happens to be such things in terms of international law. Even the Dutch have used such legal precedents to try Frans Van Anraat. I am sure he could have used the same arguments: “I cant police how Saddam used these chemicals and equipment.” No, the precedent was: it was common knowledge that he was using the chemicals for weapons, therefore you are responsible for selling them. The same ought to apply to Caterpillar. We know they are using the bulldozers illegally, so Caterpillar ought to be held responsible for selling them.
you guys might want to look up more on the history of use of bulldozers in Palestine before you reflexively argue just because you dont like my views. also, browse around online and see if you can find any matters pertaining to international and domestic law that would prohibit the sell of weapons that are to be used for illegal purposes. Do you guys really think Caterpillar does not know that there equipment has been and is continuing to be used to demolish homes and agriculture in the occupied territories, which is in violation of international law (check with the three human rights groups cited above).
go back to what the panel of judges said. its not that there is not a legal basis to rule, but to do so would require “implicitly questioning, and even condemning, United States foreign policy towards Israel.”
in north texas there is a trial going on because an Islamic charity group raised and sent money to non-violent organizations in the occupied territories controlled by Hamas. Simply because Hamas - who is classified as a terrorist organization - oversees certain non-violent organizations that provide social services to the occupied (perhaps we should go over why they need this aid and how Israel closes them off from it as much as possible) this charity is being accused of funding terrorism. I wonder how you guys would act if the judges said, “legal action could not have gone to trial without implicitly questioning, and even condemning, United States foreign policy towards Palestine.”
The illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel is not a new thing. Its been more than forty years and countless UNSC resolutions (most of which were vetoed by the US). Likewise, the brutal and aggressive methods employed by the IDF is also not a new thing. Even before what was done to Rachel Corie in broad daylight, it was known what the IDF was using the D-9’s for (take a look at their suppression of the al-Aqsa Intifada and some of the soldiers testimonies about what they did for hours at a time behind the behemoths) illegal purposes. hell, their illegal use of bulldozers goes back at least to the 1970s!
Doug, to answer your question: because there is a strong case to be made that Caterpillar knew Israel would use them illegally and inappropriately. Thats why.
Brennen, formulating a RHETORICAL response to attack my “previous rhetoric” may sound like a good debate argument, but your gray area simply doesnt apply to the known realities of what the IDF has been using US-supplied weapons and equipment for. Again, even your own gun analogy should show that Caterpillar is partially liable for selling the bulldozers to Israel.