Rachel Corrie was killed on March 16, 2003 by a 60-ton caterpillar bulldozer as she tried to prevent a Palestinian home from being demolished. Today Rachel's parents are reopening the court case against the company which has been unwilling to end its sales to the Israeli government knowing full well what the vehicles are used for, the destruction of family homes all across Gaza and the West Bank. Last week six family homes were destroyed in Gaza's Maghazi refugee camp.
During the court case the Corrie's lawyer asked the judge to consider the hypothetical case of a U.S. oven manufacturer during World War II: "If the company continued selling ovens to Germany, knowing they were being used to kill Jews, would there be legal grounds to go after the company?"
Such court cases are often too easily misunderstood. The company is not being boycotted merely because of the fact that their products are being used for purposes that are harming to or end human life and commit human rights abuses. Boycott has been threatened by well-organized campaigns after the case been made very clear to the executive decision makers at Caterpillar. Their decision in the end is whether to continue playing a role in such crimes or to take the financial loss. So far, Caterpillar has opted for the first option, thus perpetuating the existence of Rachel's blood on their hands.
Rachel stood up for the rights of a voiceless people. I am challenged by her life.
Here, the rest of the report.
Israeli Historian Ilan Pappe makes the case for boycotting his own country.
More background on boycott, divestment and sanctions.