After numerous meetings with political groups, voluntary agencies and Caterpillar itself, the recommendation was for the Church not to disinvest.

However, less than a year later the Church of England Synod has once again voted to review its investments in companies such as Caterpillar, following the acceptance of a resolution "to heed the call from our sister church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem … to disinvest from companies profiting from illegal occupation such as Caterpillar Inc". Ruth Gledhill, The Times Religion Correspondent, described this latest decision as born of a mindset "steadfastly stuck in the 1970s and 1980s". Subsequent correspondence in The Times (February 20) referred to the decision as the pursuit of "contentious politics" and "political correctness".

These criticisms are largely based on what the Bishop of St Albans described as the Synod’s "failure to understand the situation in Israel". The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has also expressed concern about the decision to review investment in Caterpillar and described the resolution passed by the Synod as "one sided".

An example of this one-sidedness is a failure to make reference to the fact that Caterpillar machines are equally likely to be used in clearing away Jewish settlements in the Gaza strip as to clear away Palestinian homes and farmland.

In addition, the debate on which the vote was based was imbalanced. While the discussion covered a broad range of topics related to ethical investment (during the course of which Caterpillar was denounced as "a company used for dreadful purposes" and their products described as "demolition machines") there was an absence of hard facts.

The fact is that there are 2.5 million Caterpillar machines in the world. Most of these are not used for demolition purposes – but to support regeneration programmes. This work includes road building programmes in countries in Africa and power plants and energy infrastructure in the newest democracies in Asia and Europe.

The resolution passed unanimously by the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005, which preceded the recent Synod vote, "to take appropriate action where it finds its corporate investments support the occupation of Palestinian lands" also voted to "encourage investment strategies that support the infrastructure of a future Palestine".

It is highly likely that a Caterpillar bulldozer will be used to help build that infrastructure.

Any decision to disinvest from Caterpillar can therefore also be regarded as a vote to disinvest from a company which makes a large contribution to the common good.

The Synod debate also failed to highlight any facts related to the sales programme of the D9 bulldozers being used by Israel for the demolition programme in the Gaza strip. The sale of D9 bulldozers came about through the US Government sales programme, which was a spin off from Camp David and the peace process. If Caterpillar were to bow to pressure from campaigners and refuse to sell goods to Israel this would in fact breach US legislation on free trade. Such a move would open up Caterpillar and similar companies to prosecution, since US law states that the only countries companies are allowed to refuse to trade with are those on an official US "boycott" or restricted trade list.

Furthermore, as one speaker during the debate highlighted, Caterpillar does not sell bulldozers directly to the Israeli army. Their machines are sold to individual dealers who then sell on to customers. Dealers are independent and not connected to Caterpillar in any way other than by being their customer, so Caterpillar has little control over what happens to their machines once they leave the factory gates. One of the Caterpillar machines caught on recent news footage has been identified as being over 50 years old. The route taken by this machine from leaving the factory to reaching its destination when captured on film is impossible to control.

The key question therefore, should be whether the Church should be taking issue with the manufacturer or more importantly those who use their products?

It is only right and proper that the Church should be concerned about ensuring that its investments are ethical. However, bulldozers in themselves are ethically neutral. The important thing is how they are used. Any decision to disinvest should not be based on a general Synod debate but a full and rigorous analysis of Caterpillar’s role in the use of its bulldozers in demolishing Palestinian homes – rather like the review undertaken by the Church of England’s Ethnical Investment Advisory Group in 2005.

Read Ruth Gledhill's weblog, and offer your views on ethical investment, here

The Rev Gill Jackson is Director of Social Responsibility for the Diocese of Leicester

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive