Why Boycotting Swiss Cheese is Not a Good Idea [In Light of Minarets Ban]
More and more people are calling to boycott the Swiss industry to punish them for their vote against the minarets. So after the Danish cookies, we are told to give up the Swiss cheese, the Swiss chocolate with the purple cow, the Swiss watch and as proposed by a Turkish minister, we should close our Swiss bank accounts (where are we going to hide now?).

If you remember about a decade ago, people started to boycott goods from companies that supported Israel. The movement was later supported by sh. Yusuf Al Qardawi and other scholars and was expanded to include goods from the US and other countries that wages war against Islam. Amongst the goals of the boycott were:
- to not financially participate in direct or indirect ways in the transgression against Muslims around the world
- to show that the Muslims have a purchasing power and can afflict financial damage
- to publicize the suffering of Muslims around the world and especially in Palestine
What? You are having a coffee at Starbucks?
Starbucks and McDonalds are probably the 2 most well-known companies that were included in the Boycott list. If you ask the average brother or sister why they are boycotting them, they will simply say that they don’t want to give money to the Israeli army. This fact has been emphasized by urban legends received by emails stating that entire revenue for one week of sales will be given to Israel. I am not denying the fact that there are some connections with the CEO of Starbuck or the McDonalds foundation, but this is far stretched from the direct sale of a coffee, and we can’t over-simplify it to 1 coffee = 1 bullet.
According to Monroe Friedman, who wrote “Consumer boycotts: effecting change through the marketplace and the mediaâ€, there are 2 strategies when calling for a boycott:
- Media-Oriented boycott: adverse effects in target’s image lead to desired change in target’s behavior
- Marketplace-oriented boycott: adverse effects on target’s image and sales lead to desired change in target’s behavior
As you can imagine, both have to go hand in hand for a campaign to be successful. Let me be clear: I am not advertising for those companies and it makes completely sense to me that I will never buy any good produced in the occupied land. However, the reality is that when you decide to not buy your coffee with a secret intention to boycott Starbucks has in reality no affect at all, as the media campaign faded long time back. We should also notice that even some PR were going on, this boycott had absolutely no effect on the ground. Why is that?
If you look back in history, you will see some very successful boycott campaigns that helped bring positive change in different parts of the world; the most famous being South Africa and the end of the Apartheid. The problem is that this is a common misconception. Boycott alone cannot influence any major policy unless it is accompanied by divestment and sanctions.
In France, a group is trying to push Carrefour, a major retail chain store, to not buy products made by Agrexco. This company based in Israel, exports 70% of the production of Israeli settlements, including those of the Jordan Valley, where 7,000 settlers have appropriated 95% of Palestinian agricultural land and control 98% of the water. To raise the awareness, the group is leading noisy but peaceful march in the stores all around the country to put the pressure on Carrefour. This is a very practical way to achieve boycott and divestment. Have we ever seen something like that in the US in an organized way?
The last ingredient missing is sanction. We are not talking about a sanction against a specific company, but a global sanction that will impact the entire country and force the government to review their policy. This can only be done if our own governments are behind it (like in the case of South Africa). In the US, it seems that it is almost impossible as the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are pro-Israel (today and forever as Hilary Clinton loves to repeat to AIPAC). Ideally, we should have a strong lobby in place in Capitol Hill, but until then, what can we do? Inform! We should try to convince all the citizen of this country that what is going on there is wrong by showing facts on the ground. We should provoke a national debate and be cohesive in the message we want to convey.
To come back to the Swiss issue, as Tariq Ramadan pointed out in his article:
Switzerland’s Muslim citizens must hear the message: their fellow citizens fear and mistrust them. Time has come for them to become more involved and more active in society, and to stop acting only in self-defense on issues related to Islam.
When we call for boycotts, it is often an emotional call to show that we are not indifferent to the situation and this is our way to show our solidarity. This quick fix strategy has failed, as the recent boycott campaigns have shown. It is now time to think for a long term solution, and the best way is through constructive dialogue and reaching out to those who disagree with us.

Pingback: uberVU - social comments