You don't « evade » or circumvent totalitarian boycott. You either oppose it or give in. There is no middle way.
Several days ago, I forwarded to some of my friends a pamphlet I had not written that pointed to Starbucks’ behavior (or to some Starbucks outlets behavior in the United States) in front of pro-Palestinian boycott threats, and advised, as a consequence to « stay out » the famous coffee shops, at least for the time being.
What was seen as objectionable was a disclaimer saying that Starbucks, « a global company with stores in 65 countries, including 600 stores in 22 Middle Eastern countries (…) does not support any political or religious cause », and that « neither Starbucks nor the company’s chairman, president and CEO, Howard Schultz, provide financial support to the Israeli government and/or the Israeli army in any way ».
I realized that some of my friends did not quite understand what was at stake nor how despicable or dangerous Starbucks attitude was. The whole case, I then decided, should be made more explicit.
The first point is that Howard Shultz, the man who transformed Starbucks into a mega business and now owns it, is Jewish and American, and was not seen until now as cold or lukewarm regarding Israel. He may not have « provided financial support » to the Israeli government and army : nobody does such things, outside of Israeli taxpayers (and the US government, through mutually advantageous agreements). On the other hand, Shultz has been for years an important donor for Orthodox Jewish institutions in Israel, and praised as such by the Israeli government ; and this is clearly the reason why Starbucks is now attacked by pro-BDS and pro-Islamist people (Shultz is also a major donor for may other causes, including research on AIDS).
The second point is that Shultz denies now – or so do his company or some branches – supporting Israel : which amounts to a tacit admission that supporting Israel is questionable.
This is certainly not an uncommon attitude : many people mitigate their support for Israel or their opposition to anti-Israel attitudes or policies by endorsing at least some anti-Israel clichés. For instance, may people oppose the academic boycott of Israel on the ground that Israeli academics are « the best Israelis » – the most critical and « pro-peace » or pro-Palestinian, element in Israeli society, and thus the most likely to put an end to the « bad » present Israeli policies.
Such behavior, in my opinion, is both ethically demeaning and politically counter-productive. You don't « evade » or circumvent totalitarian boycott. You either oppose it or give in. There is no middle way. Boycotting Israel as a nation and Israelis as persons is bad, especially considering who are Israel’s enemies. This should be the first and last word.
Not opposing the anti-Israel boycott explicitly and in the most straightforward manner leads to terrible developments like the shameful withdrawing of kosher food (not Israeli kosher, just kosher food) from Sainsbury’s supermarket in Holborn, London, on August 17, out of fear of pro-Palestinian demonstrators outside.
That the Starbucks management – of all companies – does not grasp such things is sad and should not be ignored or forgiven.
PS. Starbucks may have been a successful operation « in 22 Middle Eastern countries », but failed in Israel, or at least withdrew from that country some years ago. Intriguing facts.
© Michel Gurfinkiel, 2014