Political impact of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement aims to "end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law. " Businesses currently targeted by BDS include McDonalds and Starbucks. What has been the political impact of such boycotting, and is this justified?

In 2005, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement was initiated to end Israel’s colonization of Palestinian territories and to promote the right of return of Palestinian refugees. 

The BDS movement is led by Palestine to end international support for Israel’s persecution of Palestinians and force Israel to abide by international law. According to the official website of the BDS, they uphold the fundamental principle that Palestinians are granted equal rights to the rest of humanity.

There are three categories of their campaign.

First, they are involved in withdrawing support from all Israeli and international companies that engage in violating the fundamental human rights of Palestinians. 

Recently, this movement has insisted on boycotts of McDonalds and Starbucks. They focus boycotting on a small number of companies for products for maximum impact.

Divestment is their second category, in which they urge banks, local councils, churches, and universities to withdraw all investments from Israel and Israel-based businesses.

Last but not least, sanction campaigns pressure governments and institutions to stop their business activities with companies that permit the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. 

In addition, they desire to end military trade and free-trade agreements and suspend Israel’s membership in UN bodies and FIFA.

Their pressure campaign on the United States, one of the closest allies of Israel, can make them lose enough profit. For that reason, the BDS movement wants the United States to consider not assisting Israel to commit genocide. 

The political impact of boycotting can be complex and can vary depending on the specific circumstances, the scale of the boycott, and the responses it generates. 

To talk about the political impacts of boycotting, Boycotts, particularly when they gain international attention and support, can exert significant pressure on governments and businesses to change their policies or practices. This pressure can come from various sources, including civil society organizations and even other governments.

Not only impact political issues, but also Boycotts can have economic consequences for the targets, potentially affecting their revenue, stock prices, and reputation. This impact can vary depending on the size and influence of the boycotted entity and the extent of the boycott's reach.

Boycotts can raise public awareness about specific issues or injustices, shaping public opinion and influencing attitudes toward the targeted entities and the broader issues at hand. This increased awareness can lead to broader societal discussions and debates about the underlying political, social, or ethical concerns.

Boycotts can prompt responses from governments, both domestically and internationally. Governments may condemn or support boycotts, enact legislation to prohibit or restrict them, or use diplomatic channels to address the underlying issues that prompted the boycott because due to boycotting, their international relationship, economy, and politics can be harmed. 

Boycotts can have broader implications for diplomatic relations between countries, particularly if they involve international businesses or governments. They can strain relations between countries or create opportunities for cooperation and dialogue, depending on how the affected parties choose to respond.

Overall, the political impact of boycotting can be complex and dynamic, with outcomes influenced by a range of factors including the nature of the boycott, the responses it generates, and the broader political and social context in which it occurs.