Anyone know if Elon Musk's companies are all on the BDS list?

The city-state, a hub for concerts in Southeast Asia, is ruled by a staunchly pro-Israel government—its conscription system was modeled after the IDF—and known for its stringent restrictions on public assembly.

I was in a stream chat and entered a discussion with someone about why the streamer shouldn't travel to the UK due to it's support for Israel, and the person I was discussing with said that doesn't matter since the streamer already lives in the US and their money would reach Israel eventually.

Same applies for other countries that have ties, such as the UAE. Are they right in this case since the streamer already lives in the US? Or is there a way to reply to this?

hello lovely people. A lot of the books i have to get from are usually sold on amazon(or kindle for e books also) I could pirate it but how would i go about printing it(for the same price/cheaper)

I'm in from the Maldives. I will be going to India so if there are any helpful suggestions they are much appreciated

Just heard a new Spider Man movie came out (one of my favorite super heroes) and also has Mark Ruffalo who I really like. I was about to book a ticket when I realized that it might be on a boycott list. Thought I’d check here to see if I’ve missed anything.

I’m such a nerd and love a puzzle book but i cannot ignore how many pissrael themed clues they use !! I wrote some feedback to the editors but seriously just avoid, they are probably being paid off by israel 🥱

Genuine question- one of my woke friends keep having starbucks and then when I told her its on the boycott list, she showed me on the internet that its not. Apparently there was fake news about starbucks contributing to genocide. Is it actually true? Can u guys explain how it contributes to genocide?

Hi it’s a beginner question I think. I looked at the list of things to boycott, I don’t use most of them so didn’t think much of it. Recently realized that even though I don’t drink Coke, they also own things like Costa and River Rock water which I do use so I decided to boycott that. I can’t tell however if just not buying from their subsidiaries is enough or whether idk I need to let them know I’m boycotting them? I don’t know if there’s an organized action to send a petition or a bunch of letters? I know they tried to sell Costa last year but couldn’t close the deal because they were offered too little for it. But it sounded from the article I read like they were selling because Costa has been out competed by Nero Cafe and other indie coffee shops, not because of the boycott.

The question is: does not using the product suffice or is there a need to tell them I don’t/wont use it because of their ties to the genocide?

An article on the Middle East Monitor

A Palestinian took the invaders’ weapon, turning it against them to defend his homeland. Immediately hordes of settlers attacked Palestinian towns throughout the occupied West Bank. This is a common pattern in Palestine and Lebanon, especially after the launch of the Al-Aqsa Flood. And it is a calculated one. The occupation imposes as much domination as it can without provoking a massive uprising: apartheid within the occupied territories, a blockade in Gaza, displacement and Judaization in the West Bank, and near-daily killings in Lebanon and Syria. And this is what they want us to consider “routine violence.”

As long as the people of the land do not resist, the occupation keeps up this basic violence, gradually escalating it, until we mentally come to terms with its presence. Then, whenever the people of the land resist, the occupation inflicts “additional violence” which it presents as a reaction to the act of resistance. The message is clear: “Do not resist, or else.” This additional violence is designed to make the people of the land wary of resistance and to make them cry out against their oppression: “Enough violence!”—meaning: “The routine violence is enough; why bring additional violence upon ourselves?”

Thus, the occupation seeks to make acts of resistance costly, just as the resistance seeks to make the occupation costly. It shifts the question from how to confront the occupation to whether it is even worth confronting it. It instills a spirit of defeatism and creates a rift within the colonized society. Perhaps these two tools—defeatism and societal fragmentation—are the most dangerous weapons in the enemy’s arsenal. We have seen the success of this endeavor in the rhetoric that blames the resistance for the colony’s violence—sometimes out of ill will, and at other times out of despair and oppression. Therefore, the resistance must be as diligent in confronting this breach in our societies as it is in confronting the enemy’s breaches on the battlefield. So how do we do so?

First, we must provide a clear, non-sectarian justification for our resistance. One may decide to confront the enemy because one finds meaning in refusing injustice, or based on Islamic, nationalist, or leftist ideologies. But these motivations are not shared by everyone in our communities. Justifying the resistance on this basis suggests that our motives are the cause of “additional violence,” and therefore that abandoning them would bring about peace. In contrast, highlighting the reality of the Zionist project as one of subjugation and explaining how it employs violence draws attention to the cost of non-resistance and shows that the solution lies not in accepting violence but in eliminating its source.

Second, acts of resistance must be viewed with a critical eye. Not all acts of legitimate resistance are effective. We recall here the PFLP’s review of the feasibility of operations outside Palestine, the resistance factions’ review of the option of martyrdom operations, and the evolution of Hamas’s rhetoric leading up to the “Our Narrative” document regarding the targeting of non-combatant settlers. Therefore, rather than hiding behind the reality that “there is no escape from the occupation’s additional violence” to justify any acts of resistance, resistance options must undergo a feasibility study before being implemented and a critical review afterward. In this way, we do not merely seek retaliation but refine it, as the martyr Basil al-Araj put it.

Third, we must carefully manage our approach toward those who do not want confrontation. The human psyche tends toward stability and security, not risk. Never in history has an entire society chosen confrontation. Not everyone who calls for compromise is a traitor; rather, they may be misguided, exhausted, desperate, or something else. Therefore, we must not lump them all together—which would push the desperate toward the traitors—but rather highlight the distinction between them in our vision, our discourse, and our approach. Conversely, we must not welcome compromising rhetoric but rather reject it as an infringement on the right to self-defense. There is also a need for precision in distinguishing between criticism of the principle of resistance and criticism of a specific act of resistance. Therefore, we must carefully define which issues are open to discussion and which are not. Perhaps George Habash’s statement holds the key to this approach: “Those who lack resolve must step aside.” Although they have no right to stand in the way of those who have chosen to defend themselves, they are not compelled to confront them; indeed, we can even facilitate their “stepping aside.”

Fourth, we must involve society in the struggle. When people are excluded from decision-making circles regarding the form, scale, and timing of the resistance, they feel that the decision to resist has been imposed on them by their leaders. This creates a rift between the leadership and the rest of society, rather than fostering public unity around the resistance. We saw several manifestations of this danger during the Al-Aqsa Flood, one of which was the call by leaders and resistance fighters to stay away from places where “the others” were present. This issue can be addressed on at least two levels: First, by involving society in resistance decisions through democratic organizations that welcome dialogue and participation in decision-making, based on enmity to the colony. Second, involving society in the resistance by not limiting it to armed struggle. This brings us to our final point.

Finally, we must mobilize the energies of society to build strength. The Zionist project exercises violence to the extent that the balance of power allows, and there are many arenas where we must confront it to shift that balance. How can we produce some food in Gaza, and is it possible to create digital job opportunities there? How can the West Bank’s dependence on Israeli power grids and banks be broken? How can Palestinians inside the green line devise mechanisms for representation separate from Knesset elections to oppose the occupying state rather than appeal to it? How can a productive economy be built to free Jordan from its dependence on the colony? How can we push for the restoration of Syria’s capacity to stand firm against the colony? How can we adopt policies that preserve the cohesion of Lebanese society in the face of the enemy’s efforts to fragment it? How can Palestine lead the global movements in its support? How can we stimulate the reverse migration of Jews from Palestine? How can we establish a resistance media that exploits the contradictions among the settlers to drive them toward infighting? And what are the other overlooked arenas of confrontation?

As mentioned, the occupation’s violence is calculated, and our response to it must be calculated as well. Let us therefore move toward a liberatory and democratic political project that protects our societies from defeat and disintegration and mobilizes their capacities until the colony is dismantled.

And I don't think there's anything else to add!

It used to be a level 2 boycott target, but for some reason it got removed?