Corporate
America and Israeli Occupation
By Sam Bahour
Foreign Policy in Focus
May 23, 2002
In light of the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, the
time has come for corporate boardrooms of companies involved in
that region to reassess their role, even if that role has been to
remain silent for all these years. The corporate world must channel
its influence to end the Israeli occupation. The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict has reached a dangerous point that has the potential to
disrupt business activity, especially U.S. business interests throughout
the Middle East. Long-term U.S. national strategic interests in
the region are also at risk--namely the cost of and uninterrupted
flow of oil. Millions of U.S. corporate and citizen tax dollars
spent on building the Palestinian economy were lost in this latest
Israeli offensive against the Palestinian civil and national infrastructure.
There exist a number of laws that U.S. corporations are legally
bound by, such as the U.S. Foreign Assistance and Arms Export Control
Acts. United States law stipulates, inter alia, that any defense
articles and defense services to any country shall be furnished
"solely for internal security, [or] for legitimate self-defense"
(22U.S.C. 2302 and 2754). Israel's excessive and disproportionate
use of force to suppress the Palestinian people and its recent offensive
against Palestinian cities with U.S.-supplied weaponry clearly exceeds
the bounds of what could be considered legitimate self-defense and
therefore is in violation of U.S. law. Corporations would be ill-advised
to continue ignoring this fact in the hope that those persons who
are being damaged by their business decisions will not take legal
action in the future. Legal ghosts have haunted many firms, especially
in Europe, many years after their neglect of humanitarian law.
Furthermore, according to U.S. law, "no security assistance
may be provided to any country the government of which engages in
a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized
human rights" (22U.S.C. 2304). The U.S. State Department has
repeatedly documented in its annual reports that Israel engages
in "torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of punishment,
prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance
of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons,
and other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the
security of people."
U.S. military-related corporations support Israeli occupation by
way of an institutionalized mechanism provided for by Congress.
Congress has stipulated that 75% of U.S. foreign military aid to
Israel, which amounts to over $2 billion annually, must be spent
buying U.S. products and services. Firms like Lockheed, Boeing,
United Technologies, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, Northrop, Pgsus, General
Dynamics, and Oshkosh, among others, are directly contributing to
the tools that Israel uses to violate international and humanitarian
law. The following are some specific cases:
- U.S. weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
which provides the fighter jets that have been used by Israel
to bomb Palestinian cities that have been under military closure
for 18 months, proudly announced on September 5, 2001 from Fort
Worth, Texas that Israel had decided to purchase 52 more Lockheed
Martin F-16 fighter jets. The contract value was reported as approximately
$1.3 billion for only the aircraft.
- Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, a subsidiary of United Technologies
Corporation, sells Israel U.S. armaments used to destroy Palestinian
cities and perform political assassinations of Palestinian civilians
from the sky. "Our company's relationship of more than 40
years with Israel is a source of pride," said Sikorsky President
Dean Borgman in a February 1, 2001 press release, while announcing
his firm was awarded a $211.8 million contract for 24 additional
Black Hawk helicopters to serve the Israeli Air Force.
- Other less visible military suppliers are those like Federal
Laboratories in Saltsburg, Pennsylvania, which provides CS tear
gas to the Israeli military. During the first Palestinian Intifada
(uprising) in 1988, Federal Laboratories witnessed civil disobedience
actions at their plant gate in Saltsburg and a lawsuit in U.S.
courts after Israel misused their lethal tear gas by firing it
into closed areas, resulting in the killing of many Palestinians.
Federal Laboratories stopped exporting the gas for six months
in 1988 and sent a fact-finding team to Israel before resuming
sales.
Corporate America's support of the Israeli occupation is not confined
to military equipment suppliers. In fall 1999, Burger King opened
a franchise restaurant in an illegal Israeli settlement in the West
Bank, only to be forced by its customers to close down the store
to avoid a worldwide boycott.
In April alone three U.S. firms have been lured into collaboration
with Israel's illegal occupation. Fifth Third Bank in Northeastern
Ohio purchased $500,000 worth of bonds from Israel. Robert King,
president and chief executive of the Cleveland affiliate of Fifth
Third Bancorp in Cincinnati proudly stated in a press release that,
"This year is the state of Israel's 50th anniversary, and now
more than ever, it is poised to continue its growth as an industrial
world leader." No mention was made by Mr. King that such growth
comes at the cost of systematic, gross violations of human rights
by Israel.
Microsoft Israel put company executives in Redmond, Seattle in
an awkward position when they sponsored two large billboards on
a main Israeli highway saluting Israel's armed forces at the same
time the Israeli military was indiscriminately bombing the Jenin
refugee camp. Only days after a grassroots letter writing campaign,
partly led by the Israeli peace group Gush-Shalom, Microsoft executives
announced that Microsoft Israel had acted alone and was instructed
to take down the billboards, which they promptly did. Israel is
the largest research and development site for Microsoft outside
America. Bill Gates would serve world peace well by continuing his
involvement and requesting that Israel end the occupation in order
to qualify for continued commercial opportunities. The same can
be said for Intel Corporation, which has the largest production
facilities outside of the U.S. located in Israel.
Divesting in countries that are in blatant violation of international
and humanitarian law is not new. The divestment campaign that targeted
apartheid in South Africa is a case in point. When South African
business leaders saw that apartheid was jeopardizing their own business
interests they played an important role in convincing their government
to fall in line with international law, which led to the ending
of apartheid. One might argue that no grassroots commercial divestment
in Israel can be large enough to convince the Israeli government
to change paths. This is debatable. However, it is clear that such
a campaign would send the right signals that the time has come for
Israel to join the world community by ending its oppression of Palestinians.
(It is interesting to note that Israel was one of the closet allies
to the South African apartheid government.)
Palestinians have failed so far to translate their struggle into
a sustainable grassroots strategy that seriously engages the millions
around the world who are in support of their cause. Grassroots activism
played a significant role in the success of the South African movement
against apartheid and creating such a comprehensive grassroots campaign
will remain a burden that the Palestinian leadership must carry.
It is not enough to have a just cause; you must also have a realistic
strategy and campaigns that serve that strategy. Given the unrelenting
Israeli campaign against Palestinians, we cannot let a lack of such
a strategy be an excuse for U.S. companies to continue breaking
U.S. law or for international venues to be intimidated into delaying
overdue justice.
Corporate boardrooms in America and around the world are positioned
to contribute to ending Israel's occupation. Not only is it part
of their moral and legal obligation to do so, in the end it will
make good business sense.
(Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American businessman living in
the besieged Palestinian City of Al-Bireh/Ramallah in the West Bank
and can be reached at <sbahour@palnet.com>.)
|