The eerie silence of big business when it comes to Israel-Palestine

As the war broke out between Hamas and Israel earlier this month, McDonald's branches in Israel made an announcement on their social media accounts, stating their decision to offer free meals to the Israeli military.

This move quickly ignited a firestorm, as franchises in Muslim-majority nations, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Turkey, publicly distanced themselves from the Israeli franchise. Furthermore, these branches even demonstrated their intention to provide "aid" for Gaza.

During tumultuous times, like war, social uproar or blood boils, people's sentiments can shift rapidly, much like a swinging pendulum. In addition to politicians and everyday people, even large corporations nowadays take stands on these matters.

Following the killing of George Floyd in 2020, many prominent corporations issued statements vowing to support the Black Lives Matter movement. Some tech giants, including Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, TikTok, and others, offered words of support along with major donation pledges.

Again, in the wake of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February last year, major companies demonstrated a clear and resounding response. Big names like Adidas, Disney, Bank of America, and Toyota, along with CEOs such as Tim Cook and Jane Fraser, rallied behind Ukraine, offering financial and moral support, even wearing Ukrainian flag lapels as a show of solidarity.

Several firms, including ExxonMobil and Unilever, explicitly condemned Moscow, and over 1,000 companies committed to reducing or discontinuing their business operations in Russia as global sentiments soured.

In addition, companies such as Target and Disney lent their support to the LGBTQ community. Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks have covered travel expenses for employees seeking abortions in states where it's now prohibited. Nike faced potential boycotts for endorsing divisive US sports personality Colin Kaepernick, while Levi Strauss championed gun control initiatives.

The political clash between Disney and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis erupted after the company publicly opposed a bill that the governor eventually signed into law. Bud Light, on the other hand, faced a downturn in sales and public backlash for sending a promotional can to a prominent transgender social media personality. 
In some Target stores, customers confronted employees and disrupted displays of LGBTQ-supportive merchandise. These companies continued to champion these causes, even in the face of backlash and, in some instances, business losses.

In stark contrast, the reaction of big business to the Israel-Hamas conflict has been notably restrained. Several well-known brands that vocally supported Ukraine have refrained from taking a stance on the Middle East conflict. 

Meanwhile, a handful of companies like Microsoft, Google, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs expressed support for Israel, while condemning Hamas for its multi-pronged attack. However, these major corporations have remained conspicuously silent on Israel's retaliatory air raids in Gaza.

Marketing experts suggest that for companies known for championing social justice causes, the Israel-Palestine conflict presents a uniquely complex and sensitive issue. The historical intricacies and nuances involved in this conflict make businesses cautious about getting involved and potentially engaging in "brandification," where they oversimplify complex issues. There is a temptation to adopt binary positions to demonstrate strength, but such efforts can backfire when consumers see through them.

Moreover, taking performative stances on social and political matters can lead to backlash, reputational damage, and a loss of customer loyalty that is challenging and costly to recover. Expressing support for Palestine, in particular, is fraught with risk, especially for companies in Western countries that often label Hamas as a "terrorist" group.

Big business has also faced criticism for not strongly condemning the deadliest attack inside Israel since its establishment. Consumers have sent mixed signals regarding whether they want companies to weigh in on social and political issues. 

Two years ago, UEFA tried to avoid taking a political stance, but its decision not to light Munich's stadium in rainbow colours in protest of a Hungarian anti-LGBTQ law during a Germany-Hungary match was seen as a political statement. 

This sparked widespread criticism and led to the distribution of over 10,000 rainbow flags at the stadium. Since then, more companies have felt the pressure to publicly respond to social and political developments.

While a 2019 survey by Sprout Social indicated that over two-thirds of American consumers believe it's important for brands to take public stances on such issues, just over half said they would boycott brands that did not align with their views, and 34 percent would reduce their spending on them.

Recently, the founder of the well-known cosmetics brand Huda Beauty faced calls for a boycott following her social media declaration that she does not wish to accept revenue derived from Israeli customers, citing concerns about "blood money."

Consumers often use their choice of brands as a means to express their beliefs and values, seeking alignment with their personal convictions. During times of conflict, the stakes become especially high for brands, leading many to choose between making general statements condemning violence or maintaining silence. 

When a brand takes a stance contrary to the majority of its customer base, it risks alienating its audience, as such a statement can be perceived as an affront to their identity.

Misjudging consumer sentiment can lead to unrest and the emergence of movements like BDS, which stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. 

The BDS movement is a global campaign launched in 2005, inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement. The BDS movement aims to draw attention to what its proponents perceive as Israel's violations of international law and human rights in its treatment of Palestinians. 

While the movement periodically resurfaces, it has encountered resistance along the way.

The campaign has been lobbying intensely for close to two decades for companies to stop doing business with West Bank settlements, and even with Israel itself. 

But its record of success has been at best spotty – only a handful of major companies have withdrawn from Israel and even fewer have admitted they did so for political reasons. 

Miraz Hossain. Sketch: TBS