Boycotts are a common call to action when trying to impact groups or nations that are perpetrating harm on others. The term was coined in Ireland in the 1880s when Englishman, Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, angered his tenants when he spiked the rental cost forcing them to leave their homes. As a result, his action spurred the community to come together and refuse to pay the exorbitant rate or work for him, an action that forced him to leave the land.

There has been much discussion about whether or not real change is possible through boycotting. Boycotts have historically made a dent — experts in the UN published a report revealing that BDS initiatives were a key factor behind a 45% drop in foreign investment in Israel in 2014 and 50% in 2015.

Today, the movement at the forefront of our collective minds is the Boycott, Divestments,Sanctions (BDS) movement. The initiative was launched in 2005 by a coalition of 170 groups calling for the boycott of all Israeli products, and specific companies that aid the occupation or contribute to the Israeli economy.

ISRAEL HAS A STORIED HISTORY WITH BOYCOTTS-

Since the Israeli economy is heavily dependent on international trade and investment,they are vulnerable to boycotts on a large scale. The theory at the heart of BDS is that mounting economic pressure on Israel can provide enough leverage that the occupation leaders will be forced to bow to international demands for a ceasefire and end to the conflict.

Boycott campaigns against Israeli companies have led to the liquidation of CarmelAgrexco, Israel’s largest agricultural export company, and have forced SodaStream to close operations when BDS campaigns led retailers like Macy’s in the US and John Lewis in the UK to take its products off their shelves.

Even major European companies are susceptible to change due to international pressure. French multinationals Veolia and Orange, as well as Ireland’s largest company CRH all exited the Israeli market in 2016 after high-profile campaigns over their involvement in Israel’s crimes.

Food manufacturers General Mills and Ben and Jerry’s both ended operations and sales in Occupied Palestine, though Ben and Jerry’s was slapped with a lawsuit for explicitly attributing its exit to Israel’s war crimes.

BOYCOTTING IN EGYPT-

Will buying boycotted products really hurt the cause? Boycotting is an effective tool when used in collective coordination, says Mohamed Ramadan, an economics researcher in his interview with Ahram Online.With Egypt’s strong consumer market within the MENA region, the diminishing rate of consumption can make a considerable dent in those companies’ bottom lines, says Cairo University economics professor Omnia Helmi.

A diverging view: On the other hand, financial analyst Nadi Azzam believes that the boycotts will not makea substantial impact on the income or stock prices of multinational companies, and that the initiative is a matter of moral expression rather than a tool for effective change.

While official sanctions at the national level are the quickest method to produce enough economic pressure to enforce political change, it would be almost impossible to enforce a cold-turkey ban on commercial goods that contribute to the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians.

Consumer behavior on a large scale is what informs business decisions. Companies are unlikely to take the plunge to exclude pro-Israel products of their own accord, but they will do so under significant pressure if their sales are hurting. Long story short: It’s a bottom-up operation.

A major point of contention is that many of the popular franchises being boycotted are Egyptian-owned.Egyptian companies managing these franchises — such as McDonald’s franchisee Manfoods — have released statementsdistancing themselves from the pro-Israeli sentiments and actions of their parent companies.

While their activities are indeed independent from the franchisors, their money isn’t. Their net income may be exclusive to the Egyptian company, but annual royalties are paid in exchange for the use of trademarks and the right to manufacture specific commodities.

But this could still bring about positive changes to the economy. Boycotting multinational corporations does mean restricting the money they inject into the national economy, but the sales they miss out on are redirected mostly towards local businesses, where the money will make its way into the national market.

Aside from allowing local businesses and startups to flourish, the shift towards local products is indubitably beneficial from an economical standpoint. Developing the local economy will provide Egypt with more self-determination and security, alleviating some of our dependence on international commerce.

One example of local market growth is Spiro Spathis. The company is over a century old, predating the Israeli occupation. While it was established by a Greek expat, the company was founded and developed in Egypt. Over the years, it has struggled to keep up with foreign competitors, but it has seen a sales growth of 300% as a result of the boycott.

THE REAL CONCERN IS THE FATE OF THE EGYPTIAN WORKER-

Egyptian businesses have rallied to support workers that may be affected by the boycott, promising to prioritize the employment of those leaving international conglomerates. Executives have also promised employment to anyone affected by the movement to boycott Israel.

No layoffs have been reported as of yet here in Egypt,and none of the boycotted companies have made any statements that indicate that their employees are at risk. Helmi believes that it is unlikely that international companies will resort to dismissals.

While the increasing search for Egyptian alternatives was galvanized by the boycott,political sociologist Said Sadek told The New Arab that it will persist for more reasons than public opinion. He believes that the rising FX rates and subsequent inflation provide more incentive to gravitate toward local products, and that this behavior would have existed as a natural trend even without moral motives.

Local alternatives for food products are readily available, but commodities with few or inaccessible substitutions are difficult to replace. As the BDS movement gains momentum globally, Egyptians participating in the initiative aim to boycott what they can and minimally use what they can’t avoid.

These efforts will spur social consequences and economic pressure that may bring about change that lays the groundwork for seeking justice for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the destructive occupation of their land.

Tags: