Do not fund the organized crime
Join the boycott against the occupation
Discover a thorough inventory of "Israeli" products, their sponsors, and dedicated websites advocating for the occupation boycott
Why Boycott?
Boycotting has a profound history as a compelling tool to exert humanitarian pressure on political and economic entities, a strategy notably impactful in the Palestinian cause. By targeting the financial interests of organizations or governments, boycotts create a powerful catalyst for change. When people collectively refrain from purchasing products or services, it directly hits the revenue of the targeted entity, forcing a reevaluation of policies deemed unethical or harmful. This economic ripple effect, amplified by widespread media coverage, not only raises public awareness but also shapes opinions, effectively pressuring entities to align their actions with humanitarian values.
The historical resonance of successful boycotts, such as those against apartheid in South Africa and consumer-driven movements challenging companies with unethical labor practices, vividly illustrates the potential of boycotts to instigate significant changes. These historical parallels emphasize the relevance and effectiveness of this strategy, mirroring the goals of those advocating for Palestinian rights today.
Famous "Israeli" Brands to Never Use
The most underobserved category to boycott and the most dangerous products list that is accessible to everyone
Monday.com
Project Management
Fiverr
Freelancing Platform
Wix
Web Hosting
Elementor
Website Builder
eToro
Trading and Stocks
Censoring and Suppressing Palestinian Voices
We understand that these three are very difficult to boycott, and that's a scary thing alone,
but all we ask you to do is to not let them make profit of your paid services or misusage
Use these platforms very wisely in a way that you get more benefit than they do
Alphabet Inc. (Google)
Google and its subsidiary services, including Google Maps, Gmail, and Google Drive, have been implicated in digital censorship and surveillance, particularly in relation to information and narratives about Palestine.
Additionally, the company has experienced internal conflict, chiefly regarding its "Project Nimbus" contract, valued at $1.2 billion, with the government of occupation. This contract triggered disputes within the company, with employees, especially those of Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and even Jewish backgrounds, raising
concerns over Google's perceived support for contentious government
initiatives and surveillance activities.​
Google maintains two offices within the occupation state, employing over 2,000 individuals.
Meta
Meta and its services, including Facebook and Instagram, have been also implicated in solid digital bias, censorship, and surveillance, in relation to content about Palestine.
Meta operates in a complex regulatory environment, cooperating with occupation officials on content standards and facing criticism for systemic censorship of pro-Palestine voices.
Alongside other irresponsible tech leaders, Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed support for occupation amid the Gaza Genocide. This support was part of a broader industry support for the occupation's narrative.
Hundreds of accounts had been silenced on Facebook and Instagram just for speaking about Palestine.
Microsoft
Microsoft, along with its subsidiary platform LinkedIn, has shown significant
support to occupation. This includes expressions of solidarity with occupation during conflicts, as conveyed by CEO Satya Nadella.
Microsoft has planned
substanial investments, amounting to over $1 billion with the occupation state.
Ethical concerns have arisen due to Microsoft Azure's technological collaborations with the occupation's military, particularly in surveillance activities in West Bank and Gaza.
Furthermore, Microsoft's expansion efforts are evident in their announcement to open new sites and double their R&D workforce in occupied lands, coupled with the launch of a new Azure cloud datacenter region there.
A detailed article will be posted soon about the safe and beneficial usage of these platforms, and their alternatives.
Yes! There are actually some good alternatives
Powering the Occupation's Killing Machines
Land Rover
Jaguar
Intel
Hewelett-Packard
Amazon
Cisco
Volvo
BMW
Mercedes-Benz
Hyundai
Caterpillar
Lockheed Martin
Motorola
Boeing
A Taste of Palestinian Blood
McDonald's
Starbucks
Pizza Hut
Burger King
KFC
Taco Bell
PepsiCo
Coca-Cola
Philip Morris
Carrefour
Lay's
Nestle
Lavazza
Tim Hortons
Mountain Dew
Schweppes
Aquafina
Activia
Costa Coffee
Fuzetea
Aptamil
Mirinda
Barbican
Tropicana
Dairy Milk
Doritos
Maltesers
Magnum
Daily Life Products
Johnson & Johnson
Procter & Gamble
Axe
Bath & Body works
CeraVe
La Roche-Posay
Kerastse
Head & Shoulders
Garnier
Dove
L'oreal
Lux
Pantene
Unilever
Sudocrem
Sephora
NYX
M.A.C
Always
Venus
Gillette
Pampers
Vicks
Cif
Tide
Persil
Crimes in Style
Zara
L'Oreal
Victoria's Secret
YSL Beauty
Tom Ford Beauty
American Eagle
DKNY
Giorgio Armani
Ted Baker
Dior
kenzo
Adidas
Diesel
Louis Vuitton
Marc Jacobs
Skims
Celine
Tiffany & Co.
Marks and Spencer
Say No with Every Bowl
Rejecting Pet Food Brands That Support Israel
Whiskas
Royal Canin
Purna
Pedigree
Catsan
Temptations
Distracting People from the Truth
CNN
Fox News
Netflix
Disney
Spyglass Media Group
Sky News
Advocating for Occupation and Misleading People
Jordan Peterson
Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist, faced backlash for a tweet supporting the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu's response to October 7th. His call for aggression against Palestinians was viewed as a departure from his usual caution and philosophical doubt, revealing a stark contradiction in his rhetoric.
His tweet, "Give 'em hell @netanyahu. Enough is enough" was criticized for inciting violence against Palestinians. Critics, including journalists and scholars, condemned Peterson's stance, suggesting it aligned with his affiliation with Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire.
Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan is well known for his bias in his coverage of the Palestinian cause. Critics argue that his line of questioning, particularly about condemning Hamas, establishes a narrative that justifies the occupation's actions in Gaza and demonizes guests who refuse to condemn Hamas as supporting "terrorists".
This approach earned him several accusations about trying to distract audience from addressing the historical context of the conflict, including issues like the blockade on Gaza and the unsettling occupation's provocations in 2023 in Jerusalem and West Bank in General.
Nusseir Yassin
Gal Gadot
Ben Shapiro
Julia Hartley Brewer
Howard Stern
Joan Rivers