this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
494 points (97.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12344 readers
409 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do I get the sense that this will actually be effective?
Boycott and sanctions have always been effective...
That's why Israel spends so much to make it illegal in other countries.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/9/18172826/bds-law-israel-boycott-states-explained
I'll never understand why this isn't a big reason for people, it's literally the government violating people's 1st amendment rights, but it almost never comes up.
Oh for sure, boycotts are absolutely effective. I just get a sense that somehow cutting off the hash to Israel will be more effective than other forms of international pressure
How can you make boycotts illegal though? On what basis can anyone force you to be a consumer of something you don't want to support?
Even supply chains have freedom to negotiate contracts based on whatever floats their boats?
Looks like it's through financial punishment for companies. So nothing directly on the consumers from what I understand
That surprises me immensely. Out of all the hills Americans are willing to die on, the right to not be forced by the government to not have to do something, is pretty high up. Also, how on earth is this enforced? US oversight mechanisms on companies have been toothless for decades. But, going case-by-case in order to prove a company, beyond a reasonable doubt, changed some business operation, due to a unwillingness to trade with Israel... and not any other reason, is completely mindbogglingly absurd. It even contradicts a free market tenant, as share holders might want a company to not be associated with genocide, as the risk is pretty significant. Choosing a slightly less good partner, on paper, might be the correct choice.
It's a lot harder to ignore the suffering your government causes when you don't have the things to bury your head in the sand.
Sometimes boycotts won't make the change you wish they would. However, they make you feel better because you're no long funding/participating.