The current conflict in Gaza has left thousands of people dead, millions displaced, and millions more sympathizers of the Palestinian cause feeling helpless. Protests across the globe have given many an opportunity to voice their outrage, but in many countries, public displays of political sentiment are discouraged or illegal. Consumer boycotts give these disenfranchised citizens a way to express themselves simply by choosing not to buy brands they view as pro-Israel.
The recent killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza by an Israeli air attack has intensified sentiments in the Middle East, particularly among those already supporting boycotts against Western countries and brands.
McDonald’s, Starbucks, and other high-profile American companies have been targeted because of their perceived support for Israel and its war on Gaza. McDonald’s faced criticism for offering free meals to Israeli soldiers, while Starbucks was embroiled in a legal dispute with a workers’ union over a pro-Palestine statement.
Consumer boycotts of Western brands in the Middle East have a long history, often rooted in political, religious, and cultural conflicts.
The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) Movement targets Israel over its treatment of Palestinians and encourages boycotting Israeli products and services, divesting from Israeli companies, and sanctioning the Israeli government. The idea was conceived in 2001 during a World Conference Against Racism in South Africa and shares many similarities with the anti-apartheid movement.
BuycottIsrael was founded in 2014 by a group of activists in the United States to raise awareness about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocate for consumer boycotts of companies perceived to support Israel. The organization uses social media and online platforms to mobilize supporters and promote boycott campaigns targeting specific companies with alleged ties to Israel.
Consumer boycotts of Western brands in the Middle East, while sometimes overlapping in motivation, have also arisen over issues unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005 led to widespread outrage in the Muslim world, including the Middle East, where Danish products were boycotted. The boycott significantly impacted Danish companies, with dairy giant Arla Foods losing millions in sales as its products were removed from shelves across the region. The Danish government found itself in a diplomatic crisis, leading to efforts to soothe relations with Muslim countries and clarify its position on freedom of speech versus respect for religious sentiments.
American companies have also faced boycotts over U.S. foreign policy decisions such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s. U.S. support for Israel during this time also triggered campaigns, which targeted Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and other American brands, which, by virtue of their Western origins or through specific actions, were seen as complicit with the policies of the Israeli government.
Social Media Turns Local Boycotts Global
While many boycotts begin at the grassroots level, social media platforms allow for rapid dissemination of information and mobilization across national borders. Traditional media outlets, mosques, universities, and public squares also help galvanize public support.
The globalized economy means that consumer boycotts can have a more immediate impact on targeted companies. Brands are more sensitive to reputational damage and sales declines and are more likely to respond to boycott threats quickly. By affecting the bottom line of companies that are seen as symbolic of their home countries’ values and policies, boycotts aim to pressure these entities into reconsidering their positions or, at the very least, acknowledging the contested nature of their actions.
The emergence of a global discourse on corporate responsibility in the 1990s, emphasizing environmental sustainability, ethical labor practices, and respect for local cultures, has provided a broader context for consumer boycotts. Consumers increasingly expect companies to uphold certain standards, and boycotts can be a response to violations of these expectations. In this sense, boycotts against Western brands in the Middle East are part of a larger global trend where consumers use their purchasing power to influence corporate behavior and advocate for social justice, environmental protection, and ethical conduct.
The most obvious effect of boycotts is a sales drop, but the damage to a company’s reputation can be more expensive in the long term. Local businesses in the Middle East benefit from these boycotts, with many consumers choosing local products over foreign ones as a form of protest. This shift in consumer behavior reflects a broader trend of leveraging economic power to express political and ethical stances, especially among younger demographics.
Western companies use different public relations tactics to try to lessen the fallout. Starbucks, for example, has a dedicated section on its website that attempts to debunk “myths” about its alleged donations to the Israeli military or government. McDonald’s has focused on its role as a global corporation that seeks to operate apolitically, emphasizing its contribution to local communities, including providing employment and engaging in community service.
Government responses to consumer boycotts of Western brands have varied. Some have openly supported boycotts to signal solidarity with popular sentiment while avoiding diplomatic fallout. In other cases, governments might take a more cautious approach, balancing public sentiments with broader economic and diplomatic considerations. In some cases, governments have not endorsed the boycotts but have allowed them to take place as a form of citizen expression.
In Egypt, for example, the government did not issue an official statement, but the Federation of Egyptian Chambers of Commerce put out a press release. It acknowledged public sentiment in support of Gaza but noted that since Egypt operates under a franchising system, the affected brands are supplied by Egyptian companies that employ thousands of Egyptians and contribute taxes to the state.
The government of Jordan has sought to thread the needle of public anger at Israel by acknowledging citizens’ strong feelings without directly addressing consumer boycotts. At a recent protest, participants chanted in support of Palestine, demanding the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and the closure of the Israeli Embassy as Jordanian security forces monitored the situation closely. Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement emphasizing the need to stop the escalation in Gaza and warning of the dangerous repercussions of the conflict. This statement also condemned Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and highlighted Jordan’s role in protecting Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.
While boycotts often impact sales, brand perception, and even stock prices in the short term, they do not always lead to long-term changes in company policies or political stances. According to one study in the Journal of Consumer Culture, sustained boycotts are challenging to maintain because the outrage over an event fades over time and consumers are more likely to feel inconvenienced.
The effectiveness of consumer boycotts depends on their scale, the economic importance of the boycotted market to the company, and the company’s response. “Consumer boycotts in and of themselves are not necessarily enough to enact policy change if they are not coordinated and do not include educational campaigns and other pressure to communicate what is desired and why,” Maia Carter Hallward, a professor of Middle East Politics at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta, told this author. “It is not individual acts of boycotting that necessarily make a difference, but collective action with a specific message that outlines what consumers are doing and why that makes the difference.”
Targeting fast-food chains such as McDonald’s has symbolic importance but is unlikely to impact Israel’s economy, whose strength lies in sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and defense, which are less susceptible to consumer boycotts.
Applying pressure on Israel, or any nation, requires a multifaceted approach. Efforts can focus on influencing foreign investors, governments, and international bodies to limit their investment in key Israeli sectors. This might involve campaigning for the cessation of investment in or purchase of Israeli tech products or lobbying for the restriction of military aid and defense contracts.
Yossi Mekelberg, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, told this author that consumer boycotts in the Middle East “are far from being coordinated and the response from the public, globally, has been sporadic. Those who support Israel might respond by buying more Israeli goods and also lobby for legislation, which already exists in a number of countries, to outlaw BDS.” He added that “an effective boycott should concentrate on products and trade with the settlements, as there is an international consensus that they are illegal.”
The month of Ramadan, the period of fasting, reflection, and community for Muslims which ends today (April 9), might have further amplified the impact of consumer boycotts. During Ramadan, heightened spiritual awareness and communal solidarity might have encouraged more individuals to participate in boycotts as an expression of ethical consumption and political activism.
In Malaysia, religiously inspired consumer boycotts in the past, particularly during Ramadan and in response to the situation in Palestine, have garnered extensive support and media attention, largely due to the endorsement of prominent religious figures. Such leadership lends credibility and encourages wider adherence to the boycotts. The ongoing Israeli military actions in Gaza intensify these sentiments, reinforcing the collective resolve against brands associated with Israel.
Dr. Kristian Alexander is a Senior Fellow and the Director of International Security & Terrorism Program at TRENDS Research & Advisory (Dubai)
Consumers Protest the Gaza War by Boycotting US Goods
By Kristian Alexander
Middle East & North Africa
The current conflict in Gaza has left thousands of people dead, millions displaced, and millions more sympathizers of the Palestinian cause feeling helpless. Protests across the globe have given many an opportunity to voice their outrage, but in many countries, public displays of political sentiment are discouraged or illegal. Consumer boycotts give these disenfranchised citizens a way to express themselves simply by choosing not to buy brands they view as pro-Israel.
The recent killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza by an Israeli air attack has intensified sentiments in the Middle East, particularly among those already supporting boycotts against Western countries and brands.
McDonald’s, Starbucks, and other high-profile American companies have been targeted because of their perceived support for Israel and its war on Gaza. McDonald’s faced criticism for offering free meals to Israeli soldiers, while Starbucks was embroiled in a legal dispute with a workers’ union over a pro-Palestine statement.
Consumer boycotts of Western brands in the Middle East have a long history, often rooted in political, religious, and cultural conflicts.
The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) Movement targets Israel over its treatment of Palestinians and encourages boycotting Israeli products and services, divesting from Israeli companies, and sanctioning the Israeli government. The idea was conceived in 2001 during a World Conference Against Racism in South Africa and shares many similarities with the anti-apartheid movement.
BuycottIsrael was founded in 2014 by a group of activists in the United States to raise awareness about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocate for consumer boycotts of companies perceived to support Israel. The organization uses social media and online platforms to mobilize supporters and promote boycott campaigns targeting specific companies with alleged ties to Israel.
Consumer boycotts of Western brands in the Middle East, while sometimes overlapping in motivation, have also arisen over issues unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005 led to widespread outrage in the Muslim world, including the Middle East, where Danish products were boycotted. The boycott significantly impacted Danish companies, with dairy giant Arla Foods losing millions in sales as its products were removed from shelves across the region. The Danish government found itself in a diplomatic crisis, leading to efforts to soothe relations with Muslim countries and clarify its position on freedom of speech versus respect for religious sentiments.
American companies have also faced boycotts over U.S. foreign policy decisions such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s. U.S. support for Israel during this time also triggered campaigns, which targeted Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and other American brands, which, by virtue of their Western origins or through specific actions, were seen as complicit with the policies of the Israeli government.
Social Media Turns Local Boycotts Global
While many boycotts begin at the grassroots level, social media platforms allow for rapid dissemination of information and mobilization across national borders. Traditional media outlets, mosques, universities, and public squares also help galvanize public support.
The globalized economy means that consumer boycotts can have a more immediate impact on targeted companies. Brands are more sensitive to reputational damage and sales declines and are more likely to respond to boycott threats quickly. By affecting the bottom line of companies that are seen as symbolic of their home countries’ values and policies, boycotts aim to pressure these entities into reconsidering their positions or, at the very least, acknowledging the contested nature of their actions.
The emergence of a global discourse on corporate responsibility in the 1990s, emphasizing environmental sustainability, ethical labor practices, and respect for local cultures, has provided a broader context for consumer boycotts. Consumers increasingly expect companies to uphold certain standards, and boycotts can be a response to violations of these expectations. In this sense, boycotts against Western brands in the Middle East are part of a larger global trend where consumers use their purchasing power to influence corporate behavior and advocate for social justice, environmental protection, and ethical conduct.
The most obvious effect of boycotts is a sales drop, but the damage to a company’s reputation can be more expensive in the long term. Local businesses in the Middle East benefit from these boycotts, with many consumers choosing local products over foreign ones as a form of protest. This shift in consumer behavior reflects a broader trend of leveraging economic power to express political and ethical stances, especially among younger demographics.
Western companies use different public relations tactics to try to lessen the fallout. Starbucks, for example, has a dedicated section on its website that attempts to debunk “myths” about its alleged donations to the Israeli military or government. McDonald’s has focused on its role as a global corporation that seeks to operate apolitically, emphasizing its contribution to local communities, including providing employment and engaging in community service.
Government responses to consumer boycotts of Western brands have varied. Some have openly supported boycotts to signal solidarity with popular sentiment while avoiding diplomatic fallout. In other cases, governments might take a more cautious approach, balancing public sentiments with broader economic and diplomatic considerations. In some cases, governments have not endorsed the boycotts but have allowed them to take place as a form of citizen expression.
In Egypt, for example, the government did not issue an official statement, but the Federation of Egyptian Chambers of Commerce put out a press release. It acknowledged public sentiment in support of Gaza but noted that since Egypt operates under a franchising system, the affected brands are supplied by Egyptian companies that employ thousands of Egyptians and contribute taxes to the state.
The government of Jordan has sought to thread the needle of public anger at Israel by acknowledging citizens’ strong feelings without directly addressing consumer boycotts. At a recent protest, participants chanted in support of Palestine, demanding the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and the closure of the Israeli Embassy as Jordanian security forces monitored the situation closely. Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement emphasizing the need to stop the escalation in Gaza and warning of the dangerous repercussions of the conflict. This statement also condemned Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and highlighted Jordan’s role in protecting Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.
While boycotts often impact sales, brand perception, and even stock prices in the short term, they do not always lead to long-term changes in company policies or political stances. According to one study in the Journal of Consumer Culture, sustained boycotts are challenging to maintain because the outrage over an event fades over time and consumers are more likely to feel inconvenienced.
The effectiveness of consumer boycotts depends on their scale, the economic importance of the boycotted market to the company, and the company’s response. “Consumer boycotts in and of themselves are not necessarily enough to enact policy change if they are not coordinated and do not include educational campaigns and other pressure to communicate what is desired and why,” Maia Carter Hallward, a professor of Middle East Politics at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta, told this author. “It is not individual acts of boycotting that necessarily make a difference, but collective action with a specific message that outlines what consumers are doing and why that makes the difference.”
Targeting fast-food chains such as McDonald’s has symbolic importance but is unlikely to impact Israel’s economy, whose strength lies in sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and defense, which are less susceptible to consumer boycotts.
Applying pressure on Israel, or any nation, requires a multifaceted approach. Efforts can focus on influencing foreign investors, governments, and international bodies to limit their investment in key Israeli sectors. This might involve campaigning for the cessation of investment in or purchase of Israeli tech products or lobbying for the restriction of military aid and defense contracts.
Yossi Mekelberg, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, told this author that consumer boycotts in the Middle East “are far from being coordinated and the response from the public, globally, has been sporadic. Those who support Israel might respond by buying more Israeli goods and also lobby for legislation, which already exists in a number of countries, to outlaw BDS.” He added that “an effective boycott should concentrate on products and trade with the settlements, as there is an international consensus that they are illegal.”
The month of Ramadan, the period of fasting, reflection, and community for Muslims which ends today (April 9), might have further amplified the impact of consumer boycotts. During Ramadan, heightened spiritual awareness and communal solidarity might have encouraged more individuals to participate in boycotts as an expression of ethical consumption and political activism.
In Malaysia, religiously inspired consumer boycotts in the past, particularly during Ramadan and in response to the situation in Palestine, have garnered extensive support and media attention, largely due to the endorsement of prominent religious figures. Such leadership lends credibility and encourages wider adherence to the boycotts. The ongoing Israeli military actions in Gaza intensify these sentiments, reinforcing the collective resolve against brands associated with Israel.
Dr. Kristian Alexander is a Senior Fellow and the Director of International Security & Terrorism Program at TRENDS Research & Advisory (Dubai)
Recent & Related