Caterpillar and the
Goldstone Report
October 29, 2009
Peter Miller
In
September 2009, a U.N. fact finding mission headed by the widely respected
South African jurist Richard Goldstone released its report on Israel's attack
on Gaza entitled "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on
the Gaza Conflict." The Israel's military operation,
codenamed "Operation Cast Lead" occurred from December 27, 2008 to
January 21, 2009. The U.N. Human Rights Council has formally adopted this
report over the strenuous objections of the United States and Israel.
The
report found that both Israel and Hamas had committed serious war crimes and
possible crimes against humanity during the conflict. However, as reflected in the report, the vast majority of
the crimes were perpetrated by the Israeli military. Not only did Israel attack
civilian populations with the report finding that "that the conduct of
the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva
Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering
to protected persons" but
the Israeli military also destroyed civilian infrastructure in a "wave
of systematic destruction":
homes, factories, water treatment facilities, government buildings, farms,
schools, mosques, hospitals, and orchards.
Prominent in the report
is the mention of the use of bulldozers, armoured bulldozers and D-9 bulldozers
in the commission of a number of Israel's war crimes. The specific model of bulldozer is mentioned in paragraph
331 of the report, which indicated that the Israel forces attacking Gaza
included "engineer troops equipped with armoured D-9
bulldozers." The
D-9 is a bulldozer produced by the Caterpillar Corporation which manufacturers
a version designed to be armour plated by the Israeli military. D-9 is the only
specific model of vehicle mentioned in the report and it is safe to presume
most or all mention of bulldozers in the report are referring to armoured
Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers, designed explicitly for use by the Israeli military
in these situations. The word "bulldozer" is mentioned twenty five
times in the report; the word "D-9" is mentioned nine times. In contrast, the possible use of
controversial "DIME" munitions by the Israeli military is mentioned
thirteen times.
There are a number of
instances in the report where Israeli crimes were committed with the use of
Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers including:
- use in a "wave of systematic destruction of
civilian buildings" just as the Israeli army was making ready to depart
Gaza.
- used in deliberate acts of "wanton
destruction not justified by any military necessity."
- used to damage road systems which hindered the
rescue of the dead, dying and injured Palestinians.
- Witnesses watched "Israeli armoured
bulldozers systematically destroy land, crops, chickens and farm
infrastructure" and
"saw armoured bulldozers destroyed the chicken farms, crushing the wire
mesh coops with the chickens inside." 31,000 chickens were
destroyed by the bulldozers, 10% of Gaza's entire egg production.
- The report noted "the practice of D-9
armoured bulldozers effectively working around the clock, largely destroying
orchards."
- The destruction of Gaza's cement factory means
that now, due to the ongoing siege, Gazans are no longer able to build with
cement. Again bulldozers figured prominently:
"According
to the reconstruction of the events, the Israeli armed forces began striking
the plant from the air, damaging it significantly. Later ground forces --
equipped with bulldozers
and tanks -- moved in and used mines and explosives to destroy the silo that
used to contain 4,000 tons of cement . . .while the factory facilities and the
fence were demolished by bulldozers. Housing for 55 factory workers was also demolished with bulldozers" [Paragraph #992]
In one of the reports
many conclusions, it stated that
The
facts ascertained by the Mission indicate that there was a deliberate and
systematic policy on the part of the Israeli armed forces to target industrial
sites and water installations. In a number of testimonies given to Breaking the
Silence, Israeli soldiers have described in detail the way in which what is at
one point euphemistically referred to as “infrastructure work” was carried out.
The deployment of bulldozers
for systematic destruction is graphically recounted. Soldiers confirm in
considerable detail information provided to the Mission by witnesses.
[Paragraph #1022]
It also noted that
In
other cases, houses were demolished with bulldozers during the last few days of the military
operations when, again, Israeli forces were in total control of the areas in
which the houses were located. Military necessity and the need to prevent
rockets being fired from the houses into Israel do not seem to the Mission
plausible reasons for this widespread destruction. These considerations apply
equally to the destruction of agricultural land and greenhouses, which are so
important for local food security. [Paragraph #1319]
Note that the report did
not attempt to be an exhaustive accounting of incidences, but made an effort to
be a representative sampling of events. As they stated,
This
report does not purport to be exhaustive in documenting the very high number of
relevant incidents that occurred in the period covered by the Mission’s
mandate. Nevertheless, the Mission considers that the report is illustrative of
the main patterns of violations. In Gaza, the Mission investigated 36
incidents. [Paragraph #16]
This of course means
that there are likely many other instances of the use of Caterpillar bulldozers
for the commission of war crimes in Gaza; justice is unlikely for the many of
the victims. The full extent of
Caterpillar's involvement will probably never be fully known, particularly, as
the report concludes
In light of the
information reviewed and its analysis, the Mission concludes that there are
serious doubts about the willingness of Israel to carry out genuine
investigations in an impartial, independent, prompt and effective way as
required by international law. The Mission is also of the view that the system
presents inherently discriminatory features that make the pursuit of justice
for Palestinian victims extremely difficult. [Paragraph #1758]
The Goldstone report
also examined Israel's wider behavior in the Palestinian occupied territories,
including the West Bank. The
report notes that Israel is engaged in a campaign of "silent
transfer" or ethnic cleansing the East Jerusalem:
The
first six months of 2009 saw a dramatic rise in demolition
orders,
including demolitions of entire villages and neighborhoods, and approvals for
new settlement construction in both East Jerusalem and the rest of the West
Bank. [Paragraph #1567]
It is well known that
these demolitions of homes, villages, and neighborhoods are done with the use
of Caterpillar bulldozers and pneumatic drills as documented by organizations
like the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and others. According to ICAHD, Israel has
demolished over 18,000 Palestinian homes since 2002. (http://www.icahd.org/eng/18000homes.asp)
It can be concluded that
Israel, which purchases Caterpillar bulldozers:
· Is known to use Caterpillar bulldozers in the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
· Refuses to conduct genuine investigations of
criminal activities as required by international law.
· Is willing use Caterpillar bulldozers to help
destroy large segments of a civilian infrastructure, denying a whole population
the necessities of life in violation of international law.
· Exhibits a culture of impunity, lacking in
accountability for its actions.
· And uses Caterpillar bulldozers in its campaign
of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank.
Caterpillar touts its
code of conduct "documenting the uncompromisingly high ethical
standards our company has upheld since its founding in 1925" and
that "We also expect that our host countries ... will honor their
agreements, including those relating to rights and properties of citizens of
other nations." It would seem that Caterpillar now has
to come to grips with its moral and ethical responsibilities and end the sales
and support of its equipment to Israel.
The key use by Israel of
Caterpillar equipment in the commission of Israeli war crimes and home
demolitions has sparked a boycott campaign against Caterpillar by organizations
like The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (see
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?list=type&type=158 for more information.) Even before the
Gaza conflict, the Caterpillar Corporation has been made well aware by a number
of activists of the terrible impact its sales of equipment to Israel is having
on Palestinian human rights and suffering. Caterpillar must now examine its behavior or face continued
boycott, newly bolstered by Caterpillar's obvious complicity in what Israel has
done.
================================================
Caterpillar Code of
Conduct
http://www.cat.com/code-of-conduct
Selections from their
code of conduct web pages:
OUR
VALUES IN ACTION
Caterpillar's
Worldwide Code of Conduct
Our
Worldwide Code of Conduct, first published in 1974, defines what we stand for
and believe in, documenting the uncompromisingly high ethical standards our
company has upheld since its founding in 1925. This web site helps Caterpillar
employees put the values and principles expressed in our Code of Conduct into
action every day by providing detailed guidance on the behaviors and actions
that support our values of Integrity, Excellence, Teamwork, and Commitment.
We Protect the Health and Safety of Others and Ourselves
We
actively promote safety and safe practices throughout our value chain - from
suppliers to end users.
We Make Responsible Ownership and Investment Decisions
Caterpillar
investments must be compatible with social and economic priorities, local laws,
customs, and traditions of the countries where we do business. In all cases,
our conduct should promote acceptance and respect for our company. We also
expect that our host countries will recognize our need for stability, growth,
and business success, and that they will honor their agreements, including
those relating to rights and properties of citizens of other nations.
================================================
Selections from the
Goldstone Report
Most of these passages
refer directly to the use of bulldozers in Israel's military operations. The
leading Numbers match the numbered paragraphs in the report unless preceded by
"Footnote". For the
complete report and executive summary and recommendations, go to the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict web pages at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm
51. The chicken farms of
Mr. Sameh Sawafeary in the Zeitoun neighbourhood south of Gaza City reportedly
supplied over 10 per cent of the Gaza egg market. Armoured bulldozers of the Israeli forces systematically flattened
the chicken coops, killing all 31,000 chickens inside, and destroyed the plant
and material necessary for the business. The Mission concludes that this was a
deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by any military necessity
and draws the same legal conclusions as in the case of the destruction of the
flour mill.
53. During its visits to
the Gaza Strip, the Mission witnessed the extent of the destruction of
residential housing caused by air strikes, mortar and artillery shelling,
missile strikes, the operation of bulldozers and demolition charges. In some cases,
residential neighbourhoods were subjected to air-launched bombing and to
intensive shelling apparently in the context of the advance of Israeli ground
forces. In other cases, the facts gathered by the Mission strongly suggest that
the destruction of housing was carried out in the absence of any link to combat
engagements with Palestinian armed groups or any other effective contribution
to military action. Combining the results of its own fact finding on the ground
with UNOSAT imagery and the published testimonies of Israeli soldiers, the
Mission concludes that, in addition to the extensive destruction of housing for
so-called “operational necessity” during their advance, the Israeli forces
engaged in another wave of systematic destruction of civilian buildings during
the last three days of their presence in Gaza, aware of the imminence of
withdrawal. The conduct of the Israeli forces in this respect violated the
principle of distinction between civilian and military objects and amounted to
the grave breach of “extensive destruction … of property, not justified by
military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”. Israeli forces
further violated the right to adequate housing of the families concerned.
331. The army was
responsible for the ground invasion, which began on 3 January 2009. The
available information indicates that the Golani, Givati and Paratrooper
Brigades and five Armoured Corps Brigades were involved. Assaults on three
fronts with combined armour and infantry brigades were also augmented by
specialist Arabic-language, intelligence and, in particular, combat engineer
troops. The engineer troops equipped with armoured D-9 bulldozers were also trained in operations to counter
improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Forward elements of these attack
formations could rely on direct support from the air force to call air strikes
or to direct them, to call in helicopter missile attacks and to direct their
own attached missile-mounted UAVs.198
719. The rescue teams
had only three hours for the entire operation and the evacuees were physically
weak and emotionally very unstable. The road had been damaged by the impact of
shells and the movement of Israeli armed forces, including tanks and
bulldozers. The rescuers put all the elderly on a cart and pulled it themselves
for 1.5 kilometres to the place where they had been forced to leave the
ambulances. The dead bodies lying in the street or under the rubble, among them
women and children, as well as the dead they had found in the houses had to be
left behind. On the way back to the cars, PRCS staff entered one house where
they found a man with two broken legs. While they were carrying the man out of
the house, the Israeli armed forces started firing at the house, probably to
warn that the three-hour “temporary ceasefire” were about to expire. PRCS was
not able to return to the area until 18 January.
762. The Mission visited
Juhr ad-Dik village twice and interviewed three eyewitnesses of the killing of
Majda and Rayya Hajaj423 and two other members of the family, sons of Rayya
Hajaj (and brothers of Majda). The Mission also measured the distances between
the reported location of the victims at the time of the shooting and the tanks.
The Mission further obtained copies of the PRCS records on its attempts to
obtain approval from the Israeli armed forces to dispatch ambulances to Juhr
ad-Dik. Finally, the Mission saw the agricultural land destroyed by tanks and bulldozers, the rubble remaining of the house of one of
Saleh Hajaj and the devastation and graffiti424 left by the Israeli soldiers in
Youssef Hajaj’s house.
779.
The Israeli armed forces launched the attack against Khuza’a, a small town
about half a kilometre from the border (Green Line) with Israel east of Khan
Yunis, around 10 p.m. on 12 January 2009. During the night, they used white
phosphorous munitions, causing fires to break out in the al-Najjar
neighbourhood on the eastern fringe of Khuza’a. Families in the neighbourhood,
including the family of Nasser al-Najjar, his first wife Rouhiyah and their
daughter Hiba, spent much of the night trying to extinguish fires in their
houses. Israeli armed forces, possibly heliborne troops, had taken position on
the roofs of some houses in the neighbourhood and observed the residents as
they attempted to fight the fires. Around 3 a.m. residents also began to hear
the noise of approaching tanks and bulldozers, with which they were well familiar, as in 2008
there had been several Israeli incursions into the farmland to the north and
east of Khuza’a, in the course of which bulldozers flattened fields, groves, chicken coops and
greenhouses.
and greenhouses.
946. Mr. Sawafeary and
Mr. Mughrabi informed the Mission that they had watched Israeli armoured
bulldozers systematically destroy land, crops, chickens and farm
infrastructure. Mr. Mughrabi stated that he watched the bulldozers plough
through fields with crops and trees, destroying everything in their path. Mr.
Sawafeary stated that he saw less, as he was watching through a small opening
because he was afraid of being seen and shot. He stated that he saw only two or
three “tanks”, but was not in a position to say whether there were more. He
watched as the armoured bulldozers destroyed the chicken farms, crushing the
wire mesh coops with the chickens inside. He could not see his own farms and
the chickens he could see being destroyed were not his. He noted that the
drivers of the tanks would spend hours flattening the chicken coops, sometimes
stopping for coffee breaks, before resuming their work.
948. The Mission visited
the site and saw the still flattened mesh coops, which had been covered with
corrugated iron, as well as the remains of water tanks and machinery. The
Mission was also shown the remnants of a small mosque near the end of one of
the lines of the coops that had been destroyed. The remains of some dead
chickens were still visible and Mr. Sawafeary stated that it had been a mammoth
task to clean up the area when he returned. He pointed out that, in addition to
the loss of livestock, the farm had been completely automated with significant
investment in machinery, all of which had been destroyed, as had the plant for packaging
the eggs. In short, the business had been razed to the ground. A protective
grille, believed to be part of a D-9 armoured bulldozer, was found at the site.
987. The Mission
received information about the extensive destruction of houses and private
property during the military operations. During its own visits to the Gaza
Strip, the Mission witnessed the extent of the destruction caused by air
strikes, mortar and artillery shelling, missile strikes, the operation of
bulldozers and demolition charges. Some areas of the Gaza Strip were more
heavily affected than others, but the Mission saw many piles of rubble where,
prior to the military operations, there had been multi-storey houses.
992. Other
neighbourhoods were destroyed during the last few days of the military
operations as the Israeli armed forces were preparing to withdraw. For example,
in an incident described below, after an attempt to demolish a cement-packaging
plant in east Gaza, soldiers also destroyed the surrounding houses of the owner
and the employees. The factory owner, Mr. Abu Jubbah, had hidden in the house
for two days with seven members of his family. Suddenly, a direct strike on the
side of the house warned them that the house was to be destroyed and they
should leave. Waving a white flag, Mr. Abu Jubbah left the house in a rush, put
his family in a car and drove off. On their way they saw tanks and soldiers in
the area. Their house was destroyed by shelling. It took several strikes to
destroy it, while the factory facilities and the fence were demolished by
bulldozers. Housing for 55 factory workers was also demolished with bulldozers.
Corroboration of
Mission’s factual findings and widespread nature of housing destruction
996. Testimonies of
Israeli soldiers deployed in Gaza during the military operations corroborate
what the Mission saw for itself and heard from the witnesses it interviewed.
Several of the soldiers interviewed by Breaking the Silence spoke of the
unprecedented scale of destruction of houses and of “intentional, systematic
destruction.”508 The testimonies of the soldiers appear to distinguish between
three phases in or types of destruction of residential housing. First, there is
the destruction which is incidental to the actual combat between the advancing
Israeli forces and the Palestinian combatants or to Israeli forces directing
fire at locations from which rockets were launched.509 Second, there is
destruction of houses for what is termed “operational reasons”. This is the
deliberate destruction of houses from which fire had been opened on Israeli
soldiers or which were suspected of being booby-trapped, containing tunnels or
being used for weapons storage.510 “Operational necessity” also embraced the
destruction of houses which obstructed visibility for the Israeli armed forces
or had a “strategic advantage” for them.511 “In case of any doubt, take down
houses. You don’t need confirmation for anything, if you want”, were the
instructions of one commander to his troops.512
Footnote 509 In “The
hidden dimension of Palestinian war casualties…”, the Jerusalem Centre for
Public Affairs argues that Palestinian houses were also demolished when
Palestinian armed groups attacked houses in Gaza in which the Israeli armed
forces had taken up positions. This argument is supported with reports of
incidents gathered from websites of Palestinian armed groups, such as the
following referring to the evening of 9 January 2009: “Three RPG rockets and
machine guns are fired against a house where IDF soldiers took up positions in
the Ezvet Abd Rabbo region in the eastern sector of Jabalya” (p. 12).
Footnote 510 Soldiers’
Testimonies…, pp. 26, 35, 44, 56, 59, 61 (“Sometimes you know the house is
empty. You know as far as you can know. Now if the house disrupts your defence
line, you take it down with a tank or a bulldozer. We took an eight-storey
house and the instruction was not to enter any doorway because it would be
booby-trapped.”), and 66 (“we were to raze as much as possible of the area.
Such razing is a euphemism for intentional, systematic destruction, enabling
total visibility. Razing was meant to give us the advantage of full control
over fire and field of view, to see exactly what was happening throughout the
zone. So that no one could hide anything from us.”).
Footnote 511 Ibid., pp.
12, 61, 100 and 101.
Footnote 512 Ibid., p.
56.
1000. These figures
confirm that a first phase of extensive destruction of housing for the
“operational necessity” of the advancing Israeli forces in these areas was
followed by a period of relative idleness on the part of the Israeli bulldozers
and explosives engineers. But during the last three days, aware of their
imminent withdrawal, the Israeli armed forces engaged in another wave of
systematic destruction of civilian buildings.517
Footnote: 517 The
Mission finally notes that, in its formal submission, Housing and Land Rights
Network – Habitat International Coalition provides a detailed historical
account of the Israeli army practices of targeting civilian homes and
generating displaced populations that suggests a pattern that is not unique to
the military operation in Gaza of December 2008 – January 2009 , but
“consistent over time and across borders”.
1008. One of the
incidents Mr. Hamad referred to at the public hearing relates to the
destruction of the only cement-packaging plant in Gaza. The Mission also
interviewed its owner, Mr. Atta Abu Jubbah.519 According to the reconstruction
of the events, the Israeli armed forces began striking the plant from the air,
damaging it significantly. Later ground forces -- equipped with bulldozers and
tanks -- moved in and used mines and explosives to destroy the silo that used
to contain 4,000 tons of cement. Helicopters launched rockets to destroy the
main manufacturing line and fired holes into the cement containers. Bulldozers
were used to destroy the factory walls. Over four days the factory was
systematically destroyed. The Mission spoke with a number of other witnesses
able to verify this account and considers it to be reliable. Among those
witnesses was a civil engineer who inspected the site and confirmed that
certain aspects of the destruction could have been achieved only by placing
explosives inside the building. The silo had not been entirely destroyed in the
aerial attacks, so explosives were attached to its supporting columns.
1022. The facts
ascertained by the Mission indicate that there was a deliberate and systematic
policy on the part of the Israeli armed forces to target industrial sites and
water installations. In a number of testimonies given to Breaking the Silence,
Israeli soldiers have described in detail the way in which what is at one point
euphemistically referred to as “infrastructure work” was carried out. The
deployment of bulldozers for systematic destruction is graphically recounted.
Soldiers confirm in considerable detail information provided to the Mission by
witnesses.524
524 See Soldiers’
Testimonies…, testimony 17 on “infrastructure work” and the razing of orchards,
p. 44 and testimony 29, p. 66. Note also testimony 46 on the practice of D-9
armoured bulldozers effectively working around the clock, largely destroying
orchards (p. 100). The Mission notes that an issue raised on several occasions
was the idea of the “day after” – the circumstances that Israel would find
after finishing the military operations in terms of addressing future attacks
from Gaza. Even if this could be conceived of as a longer-term strategic
military goal, it is not a legitimate one in these circumstances. It does not
meet the appropriate test for military advantage in the pursuit of certain
objectives. Nor does it meet the test of military necessity referred to in the
grave breaches provisions. See also chapter XVI.
1053. At around 10.30
a.m. on 6 January 2009, a bulldozer arrived and started to level the house. The
bulldozer moved from east to west, demolishing everything in its way. Majdi Abd
Rabbo watched it demolish his own house and HS/08’s house. He and the two young
men were told to go back to the HS/09 house. They heard shooting.
FOOTNOTE: 532 The
Mission notes, however, that the soldier does not appear to have been a direct
witness to the incident, but rather heard it from others and subsequently met
Majdi Abd Rabbo. Soldiers’ Testimonies…, pp. 7–8: “Testimony 1 […] In one case,
our men tried to get them to come out, then they opened fire, fired some
anti-tank missiles at the house and at some point brought in a D-9,
bulldozer, and combat
helicopters. There were three armed men inside. The helicopters fired anti-tank
missiles and again the neighbour was sent in. At first he told them that
nothing had happened to them yet, they were still in there. Again helicopters
were summoned and fired, I don't know at what stage of escalation (in the use
of force). The neighbour was sent in once again. He said that two were dead and
one was still alive, so a D-9
was brought in and started demolishing the house over him until the neighbour
went in, the last armed man came out and was caught and passed on to the
Shabak. […] [Some civilians] were made to smash walls with 5-kilo
sledgehammers. There was a wall around a yard where the force didn't want to
use the gate, it needed an alternative opening for fear of booby-traps or any
other device. So the "Johnnies" themselves were required to bang open
another hole with a sledgehammer. Talking of such things, by the way, there was
a story published by Amira Hass in Haaretz daily newspaper, about Jebalya where
a guy tells exactly the same thing. It's the guy who was sent. I saw him
afterwards, the guy who was made to go into that house three times. He also
told us about being given sledgehammers to break walls.”
The newspaper article
referred to by this testimony is “Gazans: IDF used us as 'human shields' during
offensive”. The Mission notes that the soldier who gave testimony 1 states that
one of the three Palestinian combatants was arrested, while Majdi Abd Rabbo’s
testimony is that he saw all three of them dead.
1319. Similar
considerations apply to the right to adequate housing.671 The widespread
destruction of residential housing, water wells and pipe networks cannot be
seen as an inevitable or necessary incidence of military hostilities. Israel
had a duty to distinguish between civilian and military objects and not to
direct any attacks at civilians or civilian objects. The Mission has not
received any information suggesting that all the houses destroyed served as
hideouts for Hamas fighters or were booby-trapped and does not accept that this
was the case. The patterns of destruction described in the present chapter and
in others reveal that many houses were fired at or demolished after their
occupants had been ordered to leave them. There was then no clear necessity for
Israeli soldiers to occupy such properties or to destroy them. They were in
effective control of the area. In other cases, houses were demolished with bulldozers during the last few days of the military
operations when, again, Israeli forces were in total control of the areas in
which the houses were located. Military necessity and the need to prevent
rockets being fired from the houses into Israel do not seem to the Mission
plausible reasons for this widespread destruction. These considerations apply
equally to the destruction of agricultural land and greenhouses, which are so important
for local food security.