Samika Karode

Boycotting Starbucks is promoted online because of allegations that the brand is pro-Israel.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine has become a hot-topic debate, and Starbucks has been caught in the crossfire.
Earlier in October, Starbucks Workers Union made a social media post in support of Palestine. Starbucks disagreed with the post amid backlash from pro-Israel customers.
Now, numerous accounts on TikTok and Instagram are promoting a boycott against Starbucks, compelling their viewers to believe the brand is pro-Israel with misinformation regarding Starbucks and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The claims of Starbucks supporting Israel and providing money to the Israeli government are not only untrue and unjust, but also leave a stain on the beloved brand’s reputation.
Many people don’t fact check information from TikTok, or don’t realize they’re avoiding a brand that’s not connected to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Starbucks has never explicitly shown support for either side of the conflict, and the corporation has never funded or shared profits with Israel, according to Starbucks Stories & News, the company’s official website.
These facts disrupt the very basis of many arguments advocating for boycotts.
As social media stigmatizes supporting Starbucks during this period, no one is willing to do the proper research before taking a stance on a topic regarding this complex conflict. If they would, people would see these boycotts and protests are the result of misinformed individuals jumping to conclusions.
Who cares if popular brands allegedly support one side or the other? It is highly unlikely that the opinions of a brand like Starbucks will sway the outcome of the conflict in either direction.
Boycotting a business is justified when the business is engaged in unethical conduct. To certain audiences, supporting Israel during the conflict is unethical conduct.
But in regards to Starbucks and the associated misinformation, a boycott of the company is not justified.
Not only is it presumptuous to assume the company’s views of the war, the boycotts and protests provide no real support for either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
By going to a different cafe for their morning coffee, people believe that somehow they provide an advantage to Palestine and those affected by the Israel-Palestine conflict.
But according to research conducted by the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, boycotts don’t have much of an impact on a company’s sales revenue, and people disagreeing with a company are likely to still buy the company’s products.
Not only are these protests a waste of time and effort, they are distracting from the real issues at hand regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Boycotting Starbucks because of what people “believe” to be their political ideologies also does not provide the support they think it does at all.
While many could be donating and helping to provide resources for the numerous innocents affected by the Israel-Palestine conflict, they are instead wasting their efforts promoting the boycott of an uninvolved multi-billion dollar American company.
Understandably, for many, boycotting and protesting stand as the only means to show their support for Palestine. But it is important to emphasize doing the proper research beforehand.
Identify brands that express support for Israel, and take action there, not with a brand which has never taken a side and is unlikely to ever take a side.
Participating in boycotts based on public perception rather than concrete evidence contributes to a cycle of misinformation that, as a society, we should strive to put an end to.