Consumer Boycotts

[Desertrose2023]

I posted the BDS list in the supporting Palestinian businesses thread and recent discussion on another thread re the backlash against Zara got me wondering how many others are participating in consumer boycotts linked to the conflict in Gaza (and the occupation in Palestine) or for different reasons.

there are a number of brands I’m boycotting usually for a mix of reasons, political, environmental and social. Interested to hear views from others.

Disclaimer: to avoid any misinterpretation or twisting of my words - I do not support any acts of violence or vandalism or boycotting based on religion/ethnicity.

all the ones on the BDS committee list

https://bdsmovement.net/

in addition to a few others (sample below)

Starbucks: overpriced shit coffee and they recently sued their union for tweeting in support/solidarity with Palestine.

Zara: I stopped buying stuff following the controversy of their head womenswear designer making disgusting anti-Palestinian comments. The reports of slave labour (Uyghurs and in Brazil) plus the recent tone deaf ad campaign was the final straw. Plus trying to be more conscious re reducing how much ‘fast fashion’ I buy anyway.

Nestle: a history of unethical corporate practices plus including ownership of an Israeli food company with production in OPT.

This one is a classic mistake. Watch the video then check out her footwear in the photo 😁

https://twitter.com/imamofpeace/status/1717347159727656975/video/1

Plenty of other good reasons to boycott McDonalds, this issue aside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_McDonald%27s

Apparently boycotts helped rid South Africa of apartheid, so there's no reason they couldn't play a similar role in this, however small or large.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/israel-apartheid-boycotts-sanctions-south-africa

As I mentioned upthread, it's not even just about doing it to enforce change, but about choosing where to put your money on a personal ethical level. Living within your own personal moral framework is justa s important. Doing what is right for your own morals and ethics, despite its level of effectiveness in the larger scheme of things.

On a side note I guess what campaigns against Starbucks, Zara etc will do, with companies seeing what is going on withthem, is make them think twice before doing business with Israeli govt, or pursuing financial ventures in disputed regions, or even think twice before aligning with Israeli govt policy in Palestine, for example on social media.

So there will be effects. Certainly if I had a large company I would be very careful not to jeopardise its financial future by displaying allegiance with Israeli govt in any way.

Starbucks doesn’t operate in Israel and hasn’t done for 20 years.

It looks like even pulling out of Israel isn’t good enough when there’s mob rule.

that's not the reason it is being boycotted. HTH.

https://www.distractify.com/p/why-are-people-boycotting-starbucks-2023

Why are people boycotting Starbucks in 2023?

Exactly, I think we all(or at least most of us) choose where our money goes based on our ethics. Like I only buy free-range eggs, I look for whatever it is I need second-hand before buying new for environmental reasons, I don't shop at one particular local store because I saw the owner wallop his dog at the park. Zara doesn't align with my morals, I have never shopped there and never will. Will I single-handedly bring down Zara, of course not but I know that I am doing the best I can with the time and money constraints that I have.

In a world where money is power, choosing carefully where you spend your money is powerful.

@BigandBeefy exactly this.

Also what boycotts do is spread awareness on the level of the general public. So the general public become more informed about what is going on in Palestine. Awareness spreads and is really important. It may not directly affect government policy but on a less direct level these things make a difference and that difference grows.

@StrawberriesSW1 posting off topic is against MN rules, please do not try to derail the important information about Boycotting on this thread. Thanks.

Most widely educated people had an awareness of the history of the middle-east before Oct 7th - they may have even read a book or two on the subject (shock) although I'm aware the conflict is new to many.

This hysteric faction of boycotters will make not a jot of difference to the majority, in fact it could well be counterproductive and boost sales.

I'll contemplate that while wearing my Zara dress, sipping a Starbucks iced latte... etc

@BeggyMitchellWe will have to agree to disagree. That boycotts demonstrably helped in South Africa is good enough for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/israel-apartheid-boycotts-sanctions-south-africa

Honestly sip and wear away, makes no difference to me. At least I know my personal money is not going to companies that support an oppressive regime.

And I happen to know that they are already making a difference in some areas - branches of Zara, Starbucks in certain countries empty and closing down.

Hey Noble, as I mentioned to a PP on a previous thread, you're speaking far too much sense to be acknowledged in this type of frenzy.

Just remember there are far more of us reading and agreeing than there are of the noisy minority.

@BeggyMitchell

@BeggyMitchell you have a point!

Don't engage, if boycotting so obviously doesn't have an effect then why are lobbyists attempting to get governments to ban it? Because It works.

https://time.com/5914975/what-to-know-about-bds/

@BelleHathor great point.

Honestly suggesting it's stupid to boycott when buying from these companies means supporting or enabling an oppressive regime seems very weird to me. Completely backwards logic. Unless you approve of the oppression of palestinians and apartheid, of course.

@sailingdriving Exactly, we supposedly live in the democratic West. That gives people the freedom of choice to choose how they spend their money. If it impacts certain businesses then so be it. Capitalism yay!

@BelleHathor exactly. thank god we have a choice, and don't have to buy our products from state approved providers, like some posters seem to be suggesting would be preferable.

Yes, I know. People are boycotting Starbucks because they think people should be allowed to misuse Starbucks’ copyrighted logo to promote their political cause.

In your previous post you claimed that boycott action might force Starbucks to reconsider operating in contested areas, but as I said they pulled out of Israel 20 years ago.

And yet their stores are being vandalised. It’s all a bit batshit.

I wish more people would boycott fucking tiktok.

Here is the official starbucks message about the tweet, as copied from the reddit post.

official message from starbucks website: “Shortly after October 7, Workers United posted a statement with an image of a bulldozer tearing down a part of the Israel and Gaza border, reflecting their support for violence perpetrated by Hamas. Unfortunately, as violence against the innocent in the region continues to escalate, some people are mistakenly tying these remarks to us, because Workers United and its affiliates and members continue to use our name, logo and intellectual property. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of terrorism, hate and violence, and we strongly disagree with the views expressed by Workers United, including its local affiliates, union organizers and those who identify as members of “Starbucks Workers United” – none of these groups speak for Starbucks Coffee Company and do not represent our company’s views, positions, or beliefs.”

To imply the workers supported Hamas' violent acts is misrepresenting the workers with a nasty smear. No wonder people are boycotting.

@noblegiraffe and BTW I said nothing about Starbucks closing down in "contested areas". Please re-read my posts as you are misrepresenting what I said.

I was talking about other companies that see what is going on with Zara and Starbucks and choosing to think twice before aligning themselves with any action that could be interpreted as being in support of the Israeli govt.

"On a side note I guess what campaigns against Starbucks, Zara etc will do, with companies seeing what is going on withthem, is make them think twice before doing business with Israeli govt, or pursuing financial ventures in disputed regions, or even think twice before aligning with Israeli govt policy in Palestine, for example on social media."

If your requitement for boycotting a company is because the former CEO once invested in an Israeli company there aren't going to be many companies left for you to buy from. The new CEO isn't even Jewish so I'm not sure why the BDS crowd have a problem with him.