Corporate
America's support of Israeli occupation is not confined to military
equipment suppliers
By Sam Bahour
For PalestineChronicle.com
May 01 2002
Corporate America and corporate boardrooms across the globe wield
enormous political influence. It may in fact be argued that in today's
material world corporate interests are the primary motivating factors
for political action.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that power, for a multitude
of reasons, has been unjustly mobilized to help sustain 35 years
of an illegal Israeli military and economic domination of the Palestinian
people.
In light of this and 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 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. It would
be negligent for corporate America to remain silent while its government
recommits yet more tax dollars to the region without addressing
the source of the conflict. Ending Israeli occupation is the only
solution that will put the region back on track.
While earning my MBA degree at Tel Aviv and Northwestern Universities,
Professor of Leadership and Ethics, David Messick, assigned two
readings to the class. One, by Milton Friedman, argued that corporate
executives do not have a social responsibility but they must conform
to the "basic rules of the society, both those embodied in
law and those embodied in ethical custom." The second reading
by Kenneth Goodpaster argued that corporate managers had a "dual
role" in their capacities: to make decisions that were best
for their corporations and to have an eye focused on how their business
decisions affected the environment external to their firms.
Both of these writers, although presenting conflicting viewpoints,
are good reference points for the argument that corporations around
the world have a role to play to help end Israeli occupation. Whether
one solely relies on taking decisions that are legal or instead
has a greater awareness of his or her corporate social responsibility,
the result is the same - be aware how your actions may support the
oppression of others.
For corporate executives less inclined to be socially responsible,
U.S. laws that govern U.S. foreign trade must be the guiding light.
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 that 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. Pro-active
decision-making today that aligns a firm squarely against Israeli
occupation will spare it the potential agony of facing criminal
charges in the future.
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." The time is long overdue for corporate
America to take note and act accordingly.
Additionally, there is a multitude of U.S. policies and government
decisions that should ethically guide corporations in this conflict.
For instance, consider the illegal Israeli settlements that continue
to be built across Palestinian lands in the West Bank, Gaza Strip
and East Jerusalem. Successive U.S. administrations have stated
that these settlements are either, "illegal", "obstacles
to peace", "unhelpful", "provocative" or
"impediments" to peace. The time has come for corporate
executives from firms like Caterpillar, whose equipment is used
in building these settlements, to understand the negative contributions
they make to Middle East peace by not heeding their own government's
warnings over many years. These negative contributions are above
and beyond their potential violation of U.S. law. The separation
of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government,
coupled with short-term goals of powerful interest groups, may complicate
or delay legal action against those corporations that support Israeli
occupation, but one should not be fooled into thinking that such
a delay will last forever.
U.S. military-related corporations support Israeli occupation by
way of an institutionalized mechanism provided for by Congress.
Congress has stipulated that seventy-five percent 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 manufacture 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 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 that resulted 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 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.
This month alone three U.S. firms have been lured into collaboration
with Israel's illegal occupation. This week, Fifth Third Bank 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 saying
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. I suspect a closer look at these Israeli
bonds will find that they are part of the portfolio of hundreds
of public and private pension funds across America. Pension fund
managers and their beneficiaries can take an active part in ending
Israeli occupation by immediately divesting their portfolios of
these bonds.
And earlier this month, 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 into what is rapidly amounting to
war crimes. 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
of the U.S. Bill Gates would serve world peace well by continuing
his involvement and requesting Israel to 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.) Corporate responsibility
is difficult to gauge. Most serious business decisions take place
behind closed doors, outside of public view. As executives struggle
to climb the corporate ladder they are loathe to offer any comments
that may "rock the boat" with regard to Israel. Nevertheless,
standing on the right side of history with regard to the occupation
is what will set apart the leaders in corporate America. The separation
of personal convictions from corporate policy is a must and is always
in the best interest of the firm. Otherwise, an ill- founded personal
conviction may unnecessarily put the corporation on the front lines
of a future legal battle that it does not desire.
Today many European firms are learning this lesson the hard way
after it was proved they supported discrimination and atrocities
against Jews in Europe during WWII. To this date, many are still
paying the price both morally and financially.
Israel has been able to sustain its illegal occupation largely
for two reasons. First, the U.S. government, shackled by the special
interest groups such as the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, has continuously
provided Israel with unfaltering political, economic and diplomatic
cover. Even though this is the case, U.S. administrations have systematically
provided the world with signals (SOS's if I may) that wrong is being
done. This can be seen in the repeated statements regarding Israeli
settlements and in the State Department's Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices. The U.S. government needs corporate America's
help to realign its policy in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
After all these years, corporate America should be hearing these
signals and acting accordingly.
Secondly, and equally important, the 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 to delay 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.
Please consider supporting the Palestine Chronicle
with a one-time donation, or through ongoing support. You can Donate
Online using an easy and secure payment method, or kindly mail your
donation to (The Palestine Chronicle; PO Box 196, Mountlake Terrace,
WA 98043-0196, USA)
|