Caterpillar and the Goldstone Report - US Campaign for ... · PDF fileCaterpillar and the Goldstone Report ... Caterpillar bulldozers and pneumatic drills as documented by organizations

Caterpillar and the Goldstone ReportPrepared by Peter MillerOctober 29, 2009

In September 2009, a U.N. fact finding mission headed by the widelyrespected South African jurist Richard Goldstone released its report on Israel'sattack on Gaza entitled "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Missionon the Gaza Conflict." Israel's military operation, codenamed "OperationCast Lead" occurred from December 27, 2008 to January 21, 2009. The U.N.Human Rights Council has formally adopted this report over the strenuousobjections of the United States and Israel.

The report found that both Israel and Hamas had committed serious warcrimes and possible crimes against humanity during the conflict. However, asreflected in the report, the vast majority of the crimes were perpetrated by the Israeli military. Not only didIsrael attack civilian populations with the report finding that "that the conduct of the Israeli armed forcesconstitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causinggreat suffering to protected persons" but the Israeli military also destroyed civilian infrastructure in a "wave ofsystematic 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 thecommission of a number of Israel's war crimes. The specific model of bulldozer is mentioned in paragraph 331of the report, which indicated that the Israel forces attacking Gaza included "engineer troops equipped witharmoured D-9 bulldozers." The D-9 is a bulldozer produced by the Caterpillar Corporation whichmanufacturers a version designed to be armour plated by the Israeli military. D-9 is the only specific model ofvehicle mentioned in the report and it is safe to presume most or all mention of bulldozers in the report arereferring to armoured Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers, designed explicitly for use by the Israeli military in thesesituations. The word "bulldozer" is mentioned twenty five times in the report; the word "D-9" is mentioned ninetimes. In contrast, the possible use of controversial "DIME" munitions by the Israeli military is mentionedthirteen times.

There are a number of instances in the report where Israeli crimes were committed with the use of CaterpillarD-9 bulldozers including:

• use in a "wave of systematic destruction of civilian buildings" just as the Israeli army was making readyto 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 farminfrastructure" and "saw armoured bulldozers destroyed the chicken farms, crushing the wire mesh

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation | www.endtheoccupation.org | 202.332.0994 1

coops with the chickens inside." 31,000 chickens were destroyed by the bulldozers, 10% of Gaza'sentire egg production.

• The report noted "the practice of D-9 armoured bulldozers effectively working around the clock, largelydestroying orchards."

• The destruction of Gaza's cement factory means that now, due to the ongoing siege, Gazans are nolonger 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 usedmines and explosives to destroy the silo that used to contain 4,000 tons of cement . . .while the factory facilitiesand the fence were demolished by bulldozers. Housing for 55 factory workers was also demolished withbulldozers" [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 ofthe Israeli armed forces to target industrial sites and water installations. In a number of testimonies given toBreaking the Silence, Israeli soldiers have described in detail the way in which what is at one pointeuphemistically referred to as “infrastructure work” was carried out. The deployment of bulldozers forsystematic destruction is graphically recounted. Soldiers confirm in considerable detail information provided tothe 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 operationswhen, again, Israeli forces were in total control of the areas in which the houses were located. Militarynecessity and the need to prevent rockets being fired from the houses into Israel do not seem to the Missionplausible reasons for this widespread destruction. These considerations apply equally to the destruction ofagricultural 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 arepresentative sampling of events. As they stated,

This report does not purport to be exhaustive in documenting the very high number of relevant incidents thatoccurred in the period covered by the Mission’s mandate. Nevertheless, the Mission considers that the report isillustrative 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 thecommission of war crimes in Gaza; justice is unlikely for the many of the victims. The full extent ofCaterpillar's involvement will probably never be fully known, particularly, as the report concludes

In light of the information reviewed and its analysis, the Mission concludesthat there are serious doubts about the willingness of Israel to carry outgenuine investigations in an impartial, independent, prompt and effective wayas required by international law. The Mission is also of the view that thesystem presents inherently discriminatory features that make the pursuit ofjustice for Palestinian victims extremely difficult. [Paragraph #1758]

The Goldstone report also examined Israel's wider behavior in the Palestinianoccupied territories, including the West Bank. The report notes that Israel isengaged in a campaign of "silent transfer" or ethnic cleansing the EastJerusalem:

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 ofCaterpillar bulldozers and pneumatic drills as documented by organizations like the Israeli Committee AgainstHouse Demolitions (ICAHD) and others. According to ICAHD, Israel has demolished over 18,000 Palestinianhomes 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 awhole 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 companyhas upheld since its founding in 1925" and that "We also expect that our host countries ... will honor theiragreements, including those relating to rights and properties of citizens of other nations." It would seem thatCaterpillar now has to come to grips with its moral and ethical responsibilities and end the sales and support ofits equipment to Israel.

The key use by Israel of Caterpillar equipment in the commission of Israeli war crimes and home demolitionshas sparked a boycott campaign against Caterpillar by organizations like The US Campaign to End the IsraeliOccupation (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 activistsof 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 obviouscomplicity 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 intoaction every day by providing detailed guidance on the behaviors and actions that support our values ofIntegrity, 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, andtraditions 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 andproperties 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 leadingNumbers match the numbered paragraphs in the report unless preceded by "Footnote". For the complete reportand executive summary and recommendations, go to the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the GazaConflict 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 reportedlysupplied over 10 per cent of the Gaza egg market. Armoured bulldozers of the Israeli forces systematicallyflattened the chicken coops, killing all 31,000 chickens inside, and destroyed the plant and material necessaryfor the business. The Mission concludes that this was a deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by anymilitary 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 housingcaused by air strikes, mortar and artillery shelling, missile strikes, the operation of bulldozers and demolitioncharges. In some cases, residential neighbourhoods were subjected to air-launched bombing and to intensiveshelling apparently in the context of the advance of Israeli ground forces. In other cases, the facts gathered bythe Mission strongly suggest that the destruction of housing was carried out in the absence of any link tocombat 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 publishedtestimonies of Israeli soldiers, the Mission concludes that, in addition to the extensive destruction of housing forso-called “operational necessity” during their advance, the Israeli forces engaged in another wave of systematicdestruction of civilian buildings during the last three days of their presence in Gaza, aware of the imminence ofwithdrawal. The conduct of the Israeli forces in this respect violated the principle of distinction betweencivilian and military objects and amounted to the grave breach of “extensive destruction … of property, notjustified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”. Israeli forces further violated the rightto adequate housing of the families concerned.

331. The army was responsible for the ground invasion, which began on 3 January 2009. The availableinformation indicates that the Golani, Givati and Paratrooper Brigades and five Armoured Corps Brigades wereinvolved. Assaults on three fronts with combined armour and infantry brigades were also augmented byspecialist Arabic-language, intelligence and, in particular, combat engineer troops. The engineer troopsequipped with armoured D-9 bulldozers were also trained in operations to counter improvised explosivedevices (IEDs). Forward elements of these attack formations could rely on direct support from the air force tocall 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 andemotionally very unstable. The road had been damaged by the impact of shells and the movement of Israeliarmed 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 inthe street or under the rubble, among them women and children, as well as the dead they had found in thehouses had to be left behind. On the way back to the cars, PRCS staff entered one house where they found aman with two broken legs. While they were carrying the man out of the house, the Israeli armed forces startedfiring at the house, probably to warn that the three-hour “temporary ceasefire” were about to expire. PRCS wasnot 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 Majdaand Rayya Hajaj423 and two other members of the family, sons of Rayya Hajaj (and brothers of Majda). TheMission also measured the distances between the reported location of the victims at the time of the shooting andthe tanks. The Mission further obtained copies of the PRCS records on its attempts to obtain approval from theIsraeli armed forces to dispatch ambulances to Juhr ad-Dik. Finally, the Mission saw the agricultural landdestroyed by tanks and bulldozers, the rubble remaining of the house of one of Saleh Hajaj and the devastationand 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 theborder (Green Line) with Israel east of Khan Yunis, around 10 p.m. on 12 January 2009. During the night, theyused white phosphorous munitions, causing fires to break out in the al-Najjar neighbourhood on the easternfringe of Khuza’a. Families in the neighbourhood, including the family of Nasser al-Najjar, his first wifeRouhiyah and their daughter Hiba, spent much of the night trying to extinguish fires in their houses. Israeliarmed forces, possibly heliborne troops, had taken position on the roofs of some houses in the neighbourhoodand observed the residents as they attempted to fight the fires. Around 3 a.m. residents also began to hear thenoise of approaching tanks and bulldozers, with which they were well familiar, as in 2008 there had beenseveral Israeli incursions into the farmland to the north and east of Khuza’a, in the course of which bulldozersflattened fields, groves, chicken coops and greenhouses.

946. Mr. Sawafeary and Mr. Mughrabi informed the Mission that they had watched Israeli armouredbulldozers systematically destroy land, crops, chickens and farm infrastructure. Mr. Mughrabi stated that hewatched 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 beingseen and shot. He stated that he saw only two or three “tanks”, but was not in a position to say whether therewere more. He watched as the armoured bulldozers destroyed the chicken farms, crushing the wire meshcoops with the chickens inside. He could not see his own farms and the chickens he could see being destroyedwere not his. He noted that the drivers of the tanks would spend hours flattening the chicken coops, sometimesstopping for coffee breaks, before resuming their work.

948. The Mission visited the site and saw the still flattened meshcoops, which had been covered with corrugated iron, as well as theremains of water tanks and machinery. The Mission was alsoshown the remnants of a small mosque near the end of one of thelines of the coops that had been destroyed. The remains of somedead chickens were still visible and Mr. Sawafeary stated that ithad been a mammoth task to clean up the area when he returned.He pointed out that, in addition to the loss of livestock, the farmhad been completely automated with significant investment inmachinery, 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 partof a D-9 armoured bulldozer, was found at the site.

987. The Mission received information about the extensive destruction of houses and private property duringthe military operations. During its own visits to the Gaza Strip, the Mission witnessed the extent of thedestruction caused by air strikes, mortar and artillery shelling, missile strikes, the operation of bulldozers anddemolition charges. Some areas of the Gaza Strip were more heavily affected than others, but the Mission sawmany 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 Israeliarmed forces were preparing to withdraw. For example, in an incident described below, after an attempt todemolish a cement-packaging plant in east Gaza, soldiers also destroyed the surrounding houses of the ownerand the employees. The factory owner, Mr. Abu Jubbah, had hidden in the house for two days with sevenmembers of his family. Suddenly, a direct strike on the side of the house warned them that the house was to bedestroyed and they should leave. Waving a white flag, Mr. Abu Jubbah left the house in a rush, put his family ina car and drove off. On their way they saw tanks and soldiers in the area. Their house was destroyed byshelling. It took several strikes to destroy it, while the factory facilities and the fence were demolished bybulldozers. 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 theMission saw for itself and heard from the witnesses it interviewed. Several of the soldiers interviewed byBreaking the Silence spoke of the unprecedented scale of destruction of houses and of “intentional, systematicdestruction.”508 The testimonies of the soldiers appear to distinguish between three phases in or types ofdestruction of residential housing. First, there is the destruction which is incidental to the actual combatbetween the advancing Israeli forces and the Palestinian combatants or to Israeli forces directing fire atlocations 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 Israelisoldiers or which were suspected of being booby-trapped, containing tunnels or being used for weaponsstorage.510 “Operational necessity” also embraced the destruction of houses which obstructed visibility for theIsraeli armed forces or had a “strategic advantage” for them.511 “In case of any doubt, take down houses. Youdon’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 PublicAffairs argues that Palestinian houses were also demolished when Palestinian armed groups attacked houses inGaza in which the Israeli armed forces had taken up positions. This argument is supported with reports ofincidents gathered from websites of Palestinian armed groups, such as the following referring to the evening of9 January 2009: “Three RPG rockets and machine guns are fired against a house where IDF soldiers took uppositions 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 ora 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 forintentional, systematic destruction, enabling total visibility. Razing was meant to give us the advantage of fullcontrol over fire and field of view, to see exactly what was happening throughout the zone. So that no one couldhide anything from us.”).

1000. These figures confirm that a first phase of extensive destruction of housing for the “operationalnecessity” of the advancing Israeli forces in these areas was followed by a period of relative idleness on the partof the Israeli bulldozers and explosives engineers. But during the last three days, aware of their imminentwithdrawal, the Israeli armed forces engaged in another wave of systematic destruction of civilianbuildings.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 targetingcivilian homes and generating displaced populations that suggests a pattern that is not unique to the militaryoperation 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 onlycement-packaging plant in Gaza. The Mission also interviewed its owner, Mr. Atta Abu Jubbah.519 Accordingto the reconstruction of the events, the Israeli armed forces began striking the plant from the air, damaging itsignificantly. Later ground forces -- equipped with bulldozers and tanks -- moved in and used mines andexplosives to destroy the silo that used to contain 4,000 tons of cement. Helicopters launched rockets to destroythe main manufacturing line and fired holes into the cement containers. Bulldozers were used to destroy thefactory walls. Over four days the factory was systematically destroyed. The Mission spoke with a number ofother witnesses able to verify this account and considers it to be reliable. Among those witnesses was a civilengineer who inspected the site and confirmed that certain aspects of the destruction could have been achievedonly by placing explosives inside the building. The silo had not been entirely destroyed in the aerial attacks, soexplosives were attached to its supporting columns.

1022. The facts ascertained by the Mission indicate that there was a deliberate and systematic policy on the partof the Israeli armed forces to target industrial sites and water installations. In a number of testimonies given toBreaking the Silence, Israeli soldiers have described in detail the way in which what is at one point

euphemistically referred to as “infrastructure work” was carriedout. The deployment of bulldozers for systematic destruction isgraphically recounted. Soldiers confirm in considerable detailinformation provided to the Mission by witnesses.524

524 See Soldiers’ Testimonies…, testimony 17 on“infrastructure work” and the razing of orchards, p. 44 andtestimony 29, p. 66. Note also testimony 46 on the practice ofD-9 armoured bulldozers effectively working around theclock, largely destroying orchards (p. 100). The Mission notesthat 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 ofaddressing 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 breachesprovisions. See also chapter XVI.

1053. At around 10.30 a.m. on 6 January 2009, a bulldozer arrived and started to level the house. Thebulldozer moved from east to west, demolishing everything in its way. Majdi Abd Rabbo watched it demolishhis own house and HS/08’s house. He and the two young men were told to go back to the HS/09 house. Theyheard shooting.

FOOTNOTE: 532 The Mission notes, however, that the soldier does not appear to have been a direct witness tothe 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, firedsome 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 sentin. At first he told them that nothing had happened to them yet, they were still in there. Again helicopters weresummoned and fired, I don't know at what stage of escalation (in the use of force). The neighbour was sent inonce again. He said that two were dead and one was still alive, so a D-9 was brought in and started demolishingthe house over him until the neighbour went in, the last armed man came out and was caught and passed on tothe Shabak. […] [Some civilians] were made to smash walls with 5-kilo sledgehammers. There was a wallaround 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 asledgehammer. Talking of such things, by the way, there was a story published by Amira Hass in Haaretz dailynewspaper, about Jebalya where a guy tells exactly the same thing. It's the guy who was sent. I saw himafterwards, the guy who was made to go into that house three times. He also told us about being givensledgehammers to break walls.”

The newspaper article referred to by this testimony is “Gazans: IDF used us as 'human shields' duringoffensive”. The Mission notes that the soldier who gave testimony 1 states that one of the three Palestiniancombatants 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 ofresidential housing, water wells and pipe networks cannot be seen as an inevitable or necessary incidence ofmilitary hostilities. Israel had a duty to distinguish between civilian and military objects and not to direct anyattacks at civilians or civilian objects. The Mission has not received any information suggesting that all thehouses destroyed served as hideouts for Hamas fighters or were booby-trapped and does not accept that thiswas the case. The patterns of destruction described in the present chapter and in others reveal that many houseswere fired at or demolished after their occupants had been ordered to leave them. There was then no clearnecessity for Israeli soldiers to occupy such properties or to destroy them. They were in effective control of thearea. In other cases, houses were demolished with bulldozersduring the last few days of the military operations when, again,Israeli forces were in total control of the areas in which the houseswere located. Military necessity and the need to prevent rocketsbeing fired from the houses into Israel do not seem to the Missionplausible reasons for this widespread destruction. Theseconsiderations apply equally to the destruction of agricultural landand greenhouses, which are so important for local food security.


Documents

Caterpillar and the Goldstone Report - US Campaign for ... · PDF fileCaterpillar and the Goldstone Report ... Caterpillar bulldozers and pneumatic drills as documented by organizations