Pro-Palestinian Protests Call for Boycott of Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Other Multinational Companies Over Israel Support: REX by Shutterstock

REX by Shutterstock

NOS Nieuws•vandaag, 18:58

• Soehayla Halouchi

  editor Online

• Soehayla Halouchi

  editor Online

Multinationals such as Starbucks and McDonald’s are the target of international pro-Palestinian activists. They are calling on social media for a boycott of the chains because of the support that these companies allegedly give to Israel in the conflict with Hamas. They want to show “solidarity with the Palestinian cause”. They call for a boycott of Coca Cola, McDonald’s and Disney, among others.

The activists give various reasons for this. For example, they accuse coffee chain Starbucks of having a union indicted who had expressed support for the Palestinians. According to them, the mannequins in white robes in an advertisement for clothing brand Zara are reminiscent of the dead in Gaza wrapped in white cloths. And consumers should avoid McDonald’s because the Israeli branch of the fast-food chain gave out free meals to soldiers.

Artists and ice cream brand

Some of the companies targeted by activists, such as Starbucks and McDonald’s, deny that they support Israel. McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski spoke this week of “misinformation” being spread about the company. “I pray for peace”, wrote Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan last month. “Let’s build the bridge to a better future together.”

Activists do not believe these statements. The international pro-Palestinian pressure group Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) called this week to a boycott of McDonald’s, aimed at thwarting Israeli companies and companies with ties to Israel globally. The movement also tries to pressure governments “to condemn Israeli law violations.”

BDS’s actions have been running for about twenty years. For example, they called on international artists not to perform in Israel and, ultimately successfully, argued for a stop to the sale of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. The organization is classified as anti-Semitic in Germany, among others.

Effects of the calls

The consequences of the current calls for a boycott are unclear. The financial figures of the multinationals do not yet show whether the calls are having an effect. Starbucks’ stock market value has fallen sharply since mid-November, but as far as we know this is not the result of calls for a boycott.

McDonald’s and Zara are actually doing better than stock market expectations, although McDonald’s boss Kempczinski said this week to know that the company is “experiencing a significant business impact as a result of the war” in the Middle East and beyond.

It is very difficult to get rid of a stigma, even if the company is flourishing financially.

Francesco Giumelli, professor of international relations and sanctions expert

The fact that these companies do not feel any financial pain does not immediately say anything about the success of the appeal, says Francesco Giumelli, professor of international relations at the University of Groningen. An expert on international sanctions, he says the main purpose of a consumer boycott is to make a point, not necessarily to cause material damage to a company.

“One of the goals is to put pressure on governments through the local population,” says Giumelli. “If a boycott is large and many people participate, a company can get a bad reputation. And it is very difficult to get rid of such a stigma, even if the company is flourishing financially.”

Successful boycott of South Africa

That a consumer boycott can actually have an effect became apparent during the apartheid regime in South Africa. Activists then called for a boycott of the South African citrus brand Outspan under the slogan ‘Don’t squeeze a South African’. The international boycott that followed helped put an end to apartheid in South Africa, says professor of economic history Peter van Bergeijk.

“Consumers boycotting products from companies happens quite regularly, and has been happening for much longer with products from Israel,” says Van Bergeijk. “The complicated thing about this boycott is that companies are now not being approached by certain countries, but by a group with members from different countries who work together in an informal way. It is difficult to enter into discussions with this group.”

Whatever position you take, you are wrong.

Peter van Bergeijk, professor of economic history

The pro-Palestinian activists say they are committed to equal rights for Palestinians and “to end the occupation of Palestinian territory.” Because there is a lot of polarization around the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, it is difficult for companies to operate.

“Whatever position a company takes, you are wrong,” Van Bergeijk explains. “That’s why it’s difficult for companies to determine which position is better.”

It remains to be seen whether the current call for a boycott of international chains will have an impact, says Van Bergeijk. “Only when many people participate and a boycott carries weight, companies revise their strategy and politics is also influenced. If McDonald’s disappears from the streets in Israel, it will be felt and very visible.”

2024-01-05 17:58:59
#Starbucks #Zara #target #boycott #effect