Squash that Caterpillar

Today is the International Day of Action Against Caterpillar.  Since 1967, the Israeli army has used Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish over 12,000 Palestinian homes in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, leaving over 50,000 people homeless.  Virtually ever human rights group that does work around the Israel/Palestine conflict has called on CAT to end its sales to the Israeli army.  In typical corporate fashion, they respond that they are not responsible for how their equipment is used. 

It's time those who profit off the ruins of Palestine be held accountable.  Check here to see if there is an action in your area.  Also, endorse the Declaration Regarding Caterpillar Violations of Human Rights and send a message to the Caterpillar Board of Directors.

Comments

[Womble]

The war on common sense is alive and well, I see. A classic case of "prohibition logic".
You see, Scott, as long as there is a military need for home demolitions, it will be done one way or another. No suicide bombers, no smuggling tunnels- and there will be no demolitions. But as long as they are, it doesn't matter who is selling the dozers. If Caterpillar stops selling- oh well, they aren't the only ones. Hell, any tank or APC can be fitted with a dozer blade.
This is a classic case of "boycott logic". You can never kill the supply, only the demand.

[scott]

"No suicide bombers, no smuggling tunnels- and there will be no demolitions."

Womble, that's complete and utter bullshit and you know it. No way in hell have there been 12,000 smuggling tunnels or suicide bombers, yet there have been 12,000 demolished homes. Do you fancy yourself a mini pro-Israel PR machine, throwing up the generic arguments used against cases such as this, just to detract from the blog and plant doubt in the heads of those who read it? I've often wondered if that's what you're doing here.

Anyone knows that you don't need to destroy a home to stop a tunnel - you simply fill in the tunnel. Destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber not only is collective punishment, but has been proven not to work as a deterrant.

As for targeting Caterpillar, come on, you have critical thinking skills, use them. It is a symbolic campaign to send a message about the occupation and all those companies who contribute to it. Obviously other companies make bulldozers. Obviously the army can add a blade to a tank. Caterpillar is just the beginning and follows in a history of successful boycotts that started in similar ways.

[Womble]

"No way in hell have there been 12,000 smuggling tunnels or suicide bombers, yet there have been 12,000 demolished homes."
First, I don't have the data about the number of tunnels, but to my knowlege, there's been hundreds of them at least. Second, as I've said, demolition tactics are used as a way to discourage terrorist acts as well (to counterbalance the "gifts" the families of the suicide bombers and other terrorists received from the Saudis and from Saddam, up to 25 000 dollars for a bomber, I believe). Then, of course, your figure most likely includes every building damaged during the army operations- which does happen a lot, but that's the nature of urban combat, unfortunately; destroying houses is often opted for instead of risking the lives of the soldiers. There is a number of other reasons, which I can't be bothered detailing right now, but none of them include demolishing home for fun or sports, trust me on that.

"Do you fancy yourself a mini pro-Israel PR machine, throwing up the generic arguments used against cases such as this, just to detract from the blog and plant doubt in the heads of those who read it?"
If I did, it would be no different than what you do on your blog. But I am here for my own reasons, one of which, I admit, is curiosity. I like learning how people of different beliefs think, the nature of their arguments and of their logic. Hence my affection for Orwell, who dealt with this a lot and had some interesting theories.
Another reason is that you seem to be a person with fairly good intentions, who wastes his energy in a completely misguided and counterproductive manner. Like too many others, you choose confrontation tactics over searching for actual solutions. It seems too difficult for you to imagine that solutions do not necesserily lie in confrontation, but in persuasion and thorough analysis.
Then again, at times it appears to me that your position is moralistic rather than moral, and that the goal of your preaching and protesting is primarily to make you feel good.

"Anyone knows that you don't need to destroy a home to stop a tunnel - you simply fill in the tunnel."
...that begins in the basement of the house??? Just how do you do such a thing without clearing the entrance first? Not to mention that the tunnel should be destroyed beyond salvaging, not disabled temporarily.

"Destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber not only is collective punishment, but has been proven not to work as a deterrant."
There is a lot of debate about it here in Israel, and frankly, I am undecided on this issue. The moral aspect is troubling, but ultimately it boils down to the question of whether or not it is effective, whether or not it indeed saves lives. It is possible that this tactic is indeed counterproductive. I haven't, however, seen any real proof that it doesn't work, and HAVE seen a few news pieces suggesting that it did.

"It is a symbolic campaign to send a message about the occupation and all those companies who contribute to it."
A "symbolic" campaign means that it is a "feel good" action that won't make any real difference on the ground. How very wise and productive. Just check out the history of anti-Israeli boycotts and see how Israel responds to them. Your "divestment" campaign will only make us more self-reliant. Don't be surprised if in 10 years or so Israel becomes one of the world's leading bulldozer manufacturers ;)

[MK]

My oh my.. isn't someone doing a good PR job for Occupied Palestine. Womble... Please, this bullshit you're going on with will work with your right-wing "Kill the palestinians and give us the land" hypocrites of democracy. The fact of the matter is that the smuggling tiunnels and suicide bombers are not the causes of the demolitions. The demolitions cause these things to happen and the smuggling tunnels aren't only for weapons, some people don't have food becuase of the curfews and also not being able to go to work... btw what's your excuse for that? If they work they'll be able to support terrorism?

Get a Clue.

Peace.
M.

[Womble]

MK- you haven't addressed anything I've actually said, all you do is build straw men.

"some people don't have food becuase of the curfews and also not being able to go to work... btw what's your excuse for that? If they work they'll be able to support terrorism?"
No, my EXPLANATION for that is that all those hundreds of millions flowing into Palestine from the EU, the US and Israel- yes, Israel too, we are one of the main UNRWA contributors if you didn't know- ends up in the wrong hands. It either sticks to the greedy hands of the PLO officials, or is used for terrorist activities.
I've been to the Karmel market in Tel-Aviv a while ago. There are huge piles of French canned meat being sold there by young Arab traders, all of it marked "Humanitarian aid, not for sale". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how this food gets there- the crooked Palestinian officials in charge of distributing aid prefer selling it in Israel and putting the money in their pockets. That's one explanation to you. For another, make a google search on the "intra-fada" report.

[Ryan Scott]

I would like to see documented evidence that any of that land belongs to the Palestinians. Israel was made a Nation by UN mandate, and by Biblical mandate that land belongs to them. Palestinians are Arab, so how come the Arab nations don't take them in?

[scott]

Ryan Scott- what planet are you on? Oh yeah, probably the one where the bible is interpreted literally and god smites all non-white, non-born again males.

As for Israel being created by the UN, this is true. But you conveniently leave out the fact that the 1947 UN Partition Plan gave the Jews 55% of Palestine and the Arabs 45% of Palestine. That UN mandate was a mandate for a Palestinian state as well. So there's your documented evidence, buddy.

Saying Palestinians are Arabs so why don't they go to another Arab country is like saying Mexican are Latino, so just send them to other Latino countries. Now is that a rational argument? (just for your note, that's a rhetorical question. i don't want you to embarass yourself by saying yes.)

As for the Biblical mandate, the Bible says a lot of bullshit. And I also am an atheist, so I don't give a damn what the Bible says. It's been so mistranslated and politically altered over the course of thousands of years that anyone who takes it too seriously is deluding themselves. And as they say, if you're gonna pull that 2,000 years ago nonsense, then the British have a more legitimate claim to parts of France than modern day Jews do to Palestine.

[Womble]

Scott,

"As for Israel being created by the UN, this is true"
Actually, its not. The UN had merely signed the birth certificate- but the baby certainly wasn't theirs ;) After all, states can exist de-facto without UN recognition for a long time- Taiwan is a fine example.

"If you're gonna pull that 2,000 years ago nonsense, then the British have a more legitimate claim to parts of France than modern day Jews do to Palestine."
Trust me, you don't want to go there. Arguing how long a time frame invalidates the nation's right to souvereignity on land boils down to arguing whether might makes right, and you risk finding yourself on the "yes" side.
That aside, Ryan's position is indeed silly. Denying the Palestinian status as a nation on their land is denying observable reality, a delusion, simply put. When will you, two extremes of the same trouble, realize that it is the case of CONFLICTING RIGHTS, not of rights usurped?

[Womble]

Oh and on the Caterpillar thing- it seems the common sense had defeated "activism" yet again. The score is 97 to 3, and the "3" came from the "activists" themselves who purchased the CAT shares in order to vote. Talk about a "crushing" majority ;)

[scott]

"The score is 97 to 3"

I don't know if you're still checking these comments, but if you are, are you sure that's a vote total and not a percentage? My guess is that there are more than 100 Caterpillar shareholders, meaning that 3% voted for it, meaning it'd be more than just the activists.

As for it being defeated, you should know something about how these votes work. First, only 11% of people in the US own stocks. You can guess who those people most likely are - the ones who care more for money than they do for lives. They own these stocks hoping that they'll make them money, and they see such a resolution as a hinderance to that. They're just low-level war profiteers, anything for a buck.

As well, when shareholders are mailed these items to vote on, it comes with a recommendation from the Board of Directors as how they think people should vote. Clearly the Board told shareholders to vote against that resolution. With those two items in mind, it's easy to see why the resolution was defeated so easily. But you have to start somewhere.

[Womble]

"I don't know if you're still checking these comments, but if you are, are you sure that's a vote total and not a percentage?"
But of course it's percentage. But 3% is a miserably low percent, no matter how you look at it.

"it'd be more than just the activists"
Ohh not much more, considering that the activists were actually purchasing Caterpillar stocks in an organized manner in order to try and sway the vote.

"only 11% of people in the US own stocks. You can guess who those people most likely are - the ones who care more for money than they do for lives."
That's a classic unfounded assumption. Should anyone who is well-off enough to own stocks be now seen as by definition morally corrupt? Give me a break. I find it far more immoral to be a wage earner in a non-profit, consuming a share of donations to people who are in far greater need than an American on welfare. With the stock holders, at least it's their own buck they are chasing.

In the meanwhile, the Caterpillar posted record profits on sales, beyond any expectations. And you guys undoubtly had a fair share in it, providing the CAT with huge publicity for free. I bet they've saved millions on advertising this year ;)

[scott]

"I find it far more immoral to be a wage earner in a non-profit, consuming a share of donations to people who are in far greater need than an American on welfare."

Wow, Womble lecturing me on morals! Isn't that one of those things you hate? The day I want the moral advice of a right-winger, I'll let you know. While the nonprofit industry is far from perfect, it is much better than working for a company that is trying to make money off of people. We're trying to do good, to make change, and no one is forced to give us any money. Non-profit employees are also paid less for similar positions and receive fewer benefits.

Have you do research on the consituency of the non-profit I work for? Then how do you know their economic status? You might be interested to know that nearly all our funding has come from foundations - those things set up by rich people. Did I even call all stock owners morally corrupt? No.

As for Caterpillar, sure they're still making money, of course, but as the Chicago Tribune noted: CAT suffered a "punishing public relations campaign" this past year.

And I just learned that CAT shareholder resolutions are non-binding, so even if it passed, it wouldn't take effect. But it is great publicity.

[Womble]

"Wow, Womble lecturing me on morals! Isn't that one of those things you hate?"
LOL! Now that was a silly comment. I do not find morality based thinking helpful in conflict resolution. This doesn't mean I reject morality as a judgement criteria entirely, certainly not when judging one's personal conduct.

"While the nonprofit industry is far from perfect, it is much better than working for a company that is trying to make money off of people"
But you ARE making money off of people- those who were supposed to receive the dollars that end up in your pocket. At least those earning money at the market earn them off of people who can afford it. Your salary draws from the money designated for other purposes. This is the reason why I am forced to find all sorts of creative ways of helping the needy rather than donate to any charity, no matter what the cause- because I know for a fact that most- if not all- of my money will never reach the people whom I want to help. I've been on the receiving end, I know how it works.

"We're trying to do good, to make change, and no one is forced to give us any money"
I am talking about people who could RECEIVE this money, Scott. The rich benefactors can afford to feed you along with the others, of course- but someone out there gets less money than they could have because you, my friend, consume it. I am absolutely convinced that making any kind of profit off of a non-profit demolishes the very idea of non-profit.
Unless, of course, I am wrong and you are working for a purely political, propaganda oriented non-profit rather than a charity- in which case I suggest that you demand a raise, and a big one ;)

"Did I even call all stock owners morally corrupt? No."
You have very clearly implied that they are "most likely" the kind of people who only think about chasing a buck and called them "low-level war profiteers".

"As for Caterpillar, sure they're still making money, of course, but as the Chicago Tribune noted: CAT suffered a "punishing public relations campaign" this past year."
And yet the profits not only keep flowing, but are HIGHER THAN EXPECTED. They have POSTED RECORD PROFITS this year:
http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/ap/2005/04/20/ap1962530.html

If this PR campaign was "punishing", CAT must be devoted masochists, because they sure as hell seem to be enjoying.

"And I just learned that CAT shareholder resolutions are non-binding, so even if it passed, it wouldn't take effect."
The sillier the idea of the campaign.

"But it is great publicity."
Sure it is. You might even get mentioned in the news ot caught on camera with a crude "Long Live Fallijah" banner. But other than satisfaction from having your crowd-pack mentioned in the headlines, what good has it done?

Scott, I can handle you putting yourself forward as knowledgeable about certain things -- Pal/Israel stuff, or leftwing causes, or whatever, but you stepped out of your area of credibility when you addressed the Bible. You're just plain wrong when you say it's been "mistranslated and politically altered over thousands of years." Give one example, even one, of where any Bible in mainstream use today is either mistranslated from the original language or politically altered. Even one. There's no question that people from all ends of the spectrum have used it for their own ends, but that in itself says nothing as to its own internal integrity. You're just parroting atheist/agnostic propaganda at this point, desperate for reasons not to believe, no different from some religious person who makes similarly anti-intellectual, silly arguments to cover their desperation TO believe.

To clarify -- I'm not saying that there are NO errors in today's Bibles vs. the originals, but I am saying that the substance of those errors are generally insignificant and meaningless. And no one today has a greater stake in ensuring the accuracy of the Bible than the Jewish and Christian scholars who have made a life's work out of ensuring that this is so. And, like all scholarship, it is open to everyone's review.