Rachel Corrie’s parents fight Caterpillar in court

The writer attended the July 9 oral arguments in the Corrie case against Caterpillar.

On July 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle heard oral arguments on the merits of a case against the Caterpillar company for aiding and abetting human rights violations. The suit had previously been dismissed in 2005.

At the heart of the case are the 2003 deaths of 23-year-old Rachel Corrie and eight Palestinians, all of whom were all

Craig and Cindy Corrie speak at a press conference outside the court hearing. Photo: Jane Cutter

killed by Israeli Defense Forces-driven bulldozers during illegal demolitions of Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip. In 2005, Rachel’s parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, sued Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar. The company manufactures the bulldozers at issue and sold them to Israel.

The Corries seek to hold the company civilly liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations by destroying civilian homes. Joining the Corries in the suit are four Palestinian families whose relatives were killed or injured when the Israeli army destroyed their homes.

Oral arguments

The courtroom was packed to overflowing with supporters of the Corries and the Palestinian families. Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky presented the arguments for taking the case to trial.

In his presentation, Chemerinsky explained that the case deserved to go to trial because Caterpillar knew, or should have known that the bulldozers would be used to commit violations of international law. He said that Caterpillar could be held civilly liable in the deaths and injuries of Rachel Corrie, Jamal Fayed, Umar Al Sho’bi, Umar’s children, Fatima Al Sho’bi, Abir Al Sho’bi, Samir Al Sho’bi and Samir’s children Anas, Azzam and Adballah, as well as for the injuries of those that survived the bulldozer attacks.

The political nature of the case was revealed by the arguments made by lawyers for Caterpillar and the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed an amicus brief on Caterpillar’s behalf.

Caterpillar attorney Robert Abrams argued that letting the case proceed would mean that U.S. courts would be intruding on a “political issue” that should be determined by the president and Congress. He emphasized that this would interfere with the U.S. government’s relationship with Israel, a key ally in the Middle East, which is a region of “strategic interest” to the United States.

Letting the case go to trial would also require the court to determine whether or not Israel committed war crimes, stated Abrams.

Furthermore, Abrams argued that the bulldozers were paid for by the United States government as part of the Foreign Military Spending Program. The implication in Abrams’ arguments was that the U.S. government had paid for the bulldozers, the demolition of civilian homes was necessary for U.S.-Israeli security in the region; therefore, it would be wrong to let the case go to trial because a finding of liability for Caterpillar would undermine the entire U.S.-Israeli policy in Gaza.

“If your honors did look at the U.S. as paying for the bulldozer, the U.S. would be an aider and abettor as well,” he said. “There is no conclusion that can be reached other than, it presents a political question,” claimed Abrams.

Abrams ceded five minutes of his time to Department of Justice attorney Robert Loeb, representing the United States in an amicus brief on behalf of Caterpillar. Loeb again also tried to emphasize that a court ruling in the case would undermine U.S. foreign policy.

Judge Michael Hawkins posed a hypothetical question to Loeb: What about a U.S. oven manufacturer during World War

II? Would there be legal grounds to sue the company if it continued selling the ovens to Germany, knowing they were being used to kill Jews?

Loeb, indicating his ignorance of history, stated that of course there would be grounds because that would be “trading with the enemy—treason.”

Judge Hawkins gave Loeb a hard look before stating, “The United States did not declare war on Germany until 1941.”

Loeb responded that “a U.S. court would have to opine on what really happened in Gaza and the West Bank. … The financing and the sale of this equipment have been approved by the United States. The plaintiffs want to have a court second-guess the judgment of the government.”

Pursuing justice

After the conclusion of the arguments, the Corries and their attorneys gathered outside for an impromptu press conference. They indicated that they felt that the arguments had gone well for their side. Craig and Cindy Corrie stated that they would carry on the legacy of their daughter in fighting for justice for the Palestinian families that had lost their homes and loved ones due to the illegal home demolition policy.

It is true that Israel represents a “strategic ally” for the United States in the “strategically important” Middle East region. Israel is a watchdog for U.S. imperialism in the region.

Rachel Corrie gave her life in an attempt to stop Israeli human rights violations in Gaza, human rights violations that were hypocritically condemned by the United States, while being funded by U.S. tax dollars. Lawsuits like this one pursued by her parents, while ostensibly about corporate liability, shine a spotlight on the true role of the United States and its ally Israel.