Razing Questions

Needlenose directs us to this aerial view of the proposed destruction of houses in Gaza, proving that Israelis are just as capable of violating the Geneva Conventions as we are.

And on the same general topic, here's Elizabeth Corrie's latest column in Counterpunch. Her cousin, Rachel Corrie, was killed last year trying to block a bulldozer from demolishing another house in Gaza. The bulldozer was manufactured by Caterpiller. If you have time to read all of Ms. Corrie's article, by all means do so. If not, here's a brief excerpt:

The Israeli Army takes Caterpillar bulldozers, armors them, and uses them to inflict collective punishment on Palestinian civilians, in violation of international law. More to the point, it does so in violation of Caterpillar's own published policy of social responsibility, which states that its "commitment to financial success must also take into account social, economic, political and environmental priorities," a policy guided by "high ethical standards" that seek to guarantee its "reputation for integrity."

Is Caterpillar legally responsible for the way Israel perverts its bulldozers from tools of construction into weapons of destruction? Maybe not. Does it have a moral responsibility, as outlined in its own system of values, to investigate how its products are used and to preserve its "reputation for integrity" by holding its clients accountable to the same standard it holds for itself? Yes.

What's weird is that it wouldn't be such a bad idea to REBUILD Rafah, considering that the overall condition of Palestinian towns and cities in both the West Bank and Gaza have suffered from years of neglect. But the Israeli policy doesn't call for building anything--it calls for destruction.

And Bush endorses this policy wholeheartedly.