Not The Onion

12350 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

kescusay@lemmy.world

494

Moroccan hash dealers boycott Israeli drug smugglers in support of Gaza (jpost.com)

submitted 9 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hashish dealers in Morocco have stopped supplying Israeli smugglers with hashish due to the ongoing war in Gaza, according to a Friday N12 report.

It is unclear exactly when the boycott began. However, the report stated that criminal organizations have already lost "tens of millions of shekels" since the boycott began.

"The hashish dealers in Morocco are not willing to sell us more hashish either directly or through intermediaries," a drug smuggler from Israel told N12, "They decided that because of the war, they are boycotting us. Since the war, we have lost a lot of money. Tens of millions of shekels at least."

A Moroccan dealer from al-Rif confirmed to N12 that a boycott had been put in place, saying, "Why is it possible for Israelis to make a living selling Moroccan hashish when our Palestinian brothers are suffering from hunger and living in inhumane conditions? Go buy it somewhere else. We no longer sell hashish to Israelis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 75 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Twenty-six states have adopted laws that punish companies that choose to boycott Israel. Defenders of the law see them as necessary to protect an ally from hostile activists, while critics argue that the laws are unconstitutional infringements on free speech. So far, the only two federal courts to consider such bills have sided with the critics; Title 4 is designed to provide more legal cover for state BDS laws in future hearings.

Looks like it's through financial punishment for companies. So nothing directly on the consumers from what I understand

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

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.