Boycott in a knife edge situation
Published: 02:12 PM,Dec 13,2023 | EDITED : 06:12 PM,Dec 13,2023
The spread of boycott campaigns on the Internet against brands or Western companies supporting Israel’s actions against Palestinians demonstrates an awareness of political consumption in which people express their opinions through their wallets.
As it appears, the campaigns are at a popular level, with tech-savvy youth creating dedicated websites and smartphone apps that identify brands and products. Activists even called for a worldwide comprehensive halt to services. It is a punitive act with a media-oriented approach since the pressure groups rely on the low-level effort of social media to engage consumers around the globe.
It shows how digital social movements attach political messages to brands and products, and how corporate image becomes hostage, willingly or not. In the past, there have been calls against Danish, French, and Swedish products, among others.
Product boycotts are typically motivated by socio-political factors. The history of consumer protests can be traced back to the British Tea political rallies of the 1770s, when the British government taxed American colonies since most of the government debts grew while fighting wars on the colonists' behalf. In 1824, there were calls for a sugar boycott in anti-slavery campaigns.
Contemporary consumer boycotts are considered an economic weapon, and this type of manifestation is not new to the Middle East and possibly not even feasible for economic and political reasons.
Cross-corporate ownership can make boycotts a little trickier. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for some companies coming out and saying they are either a franchise or that they are not supporting or donating to Israel’s government, and therefore adjusting their public dialogue.
Just to refresh the memory, from the end of 1998 to early 2000, the Arab boycott of American products as a protest against the United States’ support for Israel grew in strength. The target brands haven’t changed much since, with Starbucks, MacDonald’s, Burger King, Pampers, and other familiar brands still listed.
An article by Nancy Turck in Foreign Affairs, dated 1977, said, “For over 30 years, members of the League of Arab States have engaged in a boycott of Israel... to discourage directly or indirectly contributing to Israel’s economic and military strengths.” It continued, “For most of its existence, the boycott has been practically dormant.”
It is not part of this opinion piece to look into the Palestinian-led organisation BDS-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, strategies, discourse, and political movement against Israel.
However, it is good to keep in mind that since 1945, there have been many initiatives against Israel, its allies, and companies doing business with Israel. The various phases of the boycotts were largely institutional.
Following the Oslo Peace Accords, in 1994, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) ended its participation in the Arab boycott against Israel. Trade and cooperation agreements have been signed with countries defending their policy of separating trade from politics.
In an unsettling scenario, multinational corporations may cancel, downsize, or postpone their investments in the region. Foreign investment is greatly needed in several Arab countries to boost their foreign exchange reserves and create job opportunities. That said, state foreign relations tend to remain calm despite the social media drumbeat on boycotts.
Now, would the international business community pledge action against Israel, as it did against Russia? Has the war in Ukraine come to an end as a result of the sanctions and boycotts imposed on Russian businesses?
Product boycotts can be economically harmful if done face-to-face, but not so much when there is a growing use of Internet shopping. Keep an eye on the delivery men!
The calls can gain widespread popular support, but will they get the results they want? Or, as on many previous occasions, fall dormant? Political consumer activism in a knife-edge situation is complex.
As it appears, the campaigns are at a popular level, with tech-savvy youth creating dedicated websites and smartphone apps that identify brands and products. Activists even called for a worldwide comprehensive halt to services. It is a punitive act with a media-oriented approach since the pressure groups rely on the low-level effort of social media to engage consumers around the globe.
It shows how digital social movements attach political messages to brands and products, and how corporate image becomes hostage, willingly or not. In the past, there have been calls against Danish, French, and Swedish products, among others.
Product boycotts are typically motivated by socio-political factors. The history of consumer protests can be traced back to the British Tea political rallies of the 1770s, when the British government taxed American colonies since most of the government debts grew while fighting wars on the colonists' behalf. In 1824, there were calls for a sugar boycott in anti-slavery campaigns.
Contemporary consumer boycotts are considered an economic weapon, and this type of manifestation is not new to the Middle East and possibly not even feasible for economic and political reasons.
Cross-corporate ownership can make boycotts a little trickier. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for some companies coming out and saying they are either a franchise or that they are not supporting or donating to Israel’s government, and therefore adjusting their public dialogue.
Just to refresh the memory, from the end of 1998 to early 2000, the Arab boycott of American products as a protest against the United States’ support for Israel grew in strength. The target brands haven’t changed much since, with Starbucks, MacDonald’s, Burger King, Pampers, and other familiar brands still listed.
An article by Nancy Turck in Foreign Affairs, dated 1977, said, “For over 30 years, members of the League of Arab States have engaged in a boycott of Israel... to discourage directly or indirectly contributing to Israel’s economic and military strengths.” It continued, “For most of its existence, the boycott has been practically dormant.”
It is not part of this opinion piece to look into the Palestinian-led organisation BDS-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, strategies, discourse, and political movement against Israel.
However, it is good to keep in mind that since 1945, there have been many initiatives against Israel, its allies, and companies doing business with Israel. The various phases of the boycotts were largely institutional.
Following the Oslo Peace Accords, in 1994, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) ended its participation in the Arab boycott against Israel. Trade and cooperation agreements have been signed with countries defending their policy of separating trade from politics.
In an unsettling scenario, multinational corporations may cancel, downsize, or postpone their investments in the region. Foreign investment is greatly needed in several Arab countries to boost their foreign exchange reserves and create job opportunities. That said, state foreign relations tend to remain calm despite the social media drumbeat on boycotts.
Now, would the international business community pledge action against Israel, as it did against Russia? Has the war in Ukraine come to an end as a result of the sanctions and boycotts imposed on Russian businesses?
Product boycotts can be economically harmful if done face-to-face, but not so much when there is a growing use of Internet shopping. Keep an eye on the delivery men!
The calls can gain widespread popular support, but will they get the results they want? Or, as on many previous occasions, fall dormant? Political consumer activism in a knife-edge situation is complex.