Agencia AJN.- Following the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7, in which the massive use of Toyota trucks by the terrorist group was evident, the Japanese company did not issue specific statements about the use of its vehicles in this context, despite the visibility of its brand in images of the conflict.

They could be seen in Sderot, Ofakim, on the roads of Israel, surrounding squares and also upon their arrival in Gaza with hostages.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas perpetrated a massacre in a series of coordinated attacks against communities in southern Israel, leaving a balance of more than a thousand civilians killed and dozens of hostages. The images and videos released clearly showed a constant in the vehicles used by the terrorists.
These are Toyota trucks, mainly the Hilux and Land Cruiser models.

This phenomenon is not new in conflict contexts. Toyota pickup trucks, known for their robustness, reliability and off-road capability, have been seen in multiple war zones and used by various armed groups over the past decades. These characteristics, coupled with their availability in secondary markets and smuggling networks, have made them a key resource for operations in hostile terrain.

However, what is striking in this case is the absence of a specific statement by Toyota following the events of October 7. Although the company has previously denied having control over the fate of its vehicles, its silence in the face of this tragedy and the media exposure its models have had in this context raise questions about its ethical stance and its collaboration with international authorities to prevent this type of use.

In the past, Toyota has worked with governments and agencies to track how its vehicles end up in the hands of armed groups, but no concrete actions have been reported following the Hamas attacks. This reinforces a broader debate about the responsibility of multinational companies in controlling the end use of their products, especially when these end up being part of war crimes or terrorist acts.

Toyota’s omission in this case leaves an unknown about its position in the face of one of the most violent episodes in the Middle East in recent years and the impact that this perception could have on its global reputation. Is the declaration of a policy of non-cooperation enough, or should more forceful measures be taken to prevent these vehicles from continuing to be protagonists in armed conflicts?