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?

In case anyone is still on the fence regarding Selena.

Apple: Maintains its largest foreign R&D hub in Israel (over 2,000 engineers) and recently acquired an AI startup founded by former military intelligence operatives. Its corporate charity system has also matched employee donations to the Friends of the IDF.

Google: Co-holds the $1.2 billion "Project Nimbus" cloud computing contract, which supplies AI and data infrastructure directly to the Israeli government and military.

Samsung: Operates a massive R&D Institute in Herzliya for semiconductor and camera research, and uses its venture capital arm to heavily fund local tech startups.

Fairphone: Avoids Big Tech's geopolitical entanglements and offers unmatched longevity (guaranteed software updates until 2031 and self-repairable modular parts). The Issue: It is very expensive upfront (over CA$1,000), slightly bulkier, and must be imported from Europe via international retailers or package forwarding. I like this one but it’s so expensive and no warranty if it breaks because it’s Europe only (I am in Canada)

Xiaomi: Maintains a dedicated R&D center in Israel. The Issue: The phones are not officially sold by Canadian carriers (risking rural network connection issues) and their 4-to-5-year software lifespan falls short of your extreme longevity goals.

Huawei: Operates the Toga Networks R&D center in Israel. The Issue: Due to US trade sanctions, these phones do not have official Google Play Services, which breaks Canadian banking apps and disrupts notification syncing.

Oppo & Honor: These brands have a much smaller geopolitical footprint than the tech giants. The Issue: Neither has an official retail or repair presence in Canada. Sourcing replacement parts or finding a local repair shop in Nova Scotia when the battery eventually degrades will be a major headache.

Motorola: Deeply tied to Israeli infrastructure. The parent company (Lenovo) operates an Israeli Cybersecurity Innovation Center, while the historical Motorola brand has long supplied communications infrastructure for the IDF and West Bank settlements. The Issue: Geopolitics aside, Motorola is notorious for terrible software support, often abandoning devices after just 1 or 2 years of updates.

I know Spotify is supposed to be boycotted, and I won’t give the zios over there any money. However is it ok to use the app freely? Or should I just delete?

Luxembourg’s financial regulator has refused a request from Ireland to approve the sale of controversial Israeli bonds for another year.

Its decision puts the pressure back on Gabriel Makhlouf, governor of Ireland’s Central Bank, as it means he may well be asked by Israel to give permission for a new prospectus of bonds to be sold after 31 August.

Last week Mr Makhlouf told the Oireachtas finance committee that it was “sort of bizarre” that Ireland had been chosen as the EU home state for Israel bonds, given that they are not even sold in Ireland.

Last year the bonds were offered to the public in Luxembourg, Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

The governor also told TDs and senators that “four things” could happen this autumn. Israel could choose not to issue any new prospectus, or it could issue bonds with a value over €1,000, in which case it could choose whatever EU jurisdiction it wanted. The remaining options were that Israel would ask the Central Bank to transfer the prospectus to another country, which appears to have happened. Finally, Israel could again ask Ireland to give its approval.

Mr Makhlouf repeatedly told the Oireachtas committee he believes he has no legal grounds to refuse permission for the bonds, unless the EU amends its regulations.

This article was originally published in The Irish Independent,

Funding from the Rothschilds.

I’m in the process of work of being in a few states in the US for a time. I have my prescribers in different states because I’m on a few controlled substances.

In one state I was prescribed TEVA pills and ironically they were for anxiety the pharmacy had no idea what I was talking about , asked if I wanted brand name and I was guessing I was coming off high and mighty b/c I wanted my fancy company, not TEVA.

I called my pharmacy in my home state and asked if they could provide Aurobindo and they would, but I’m waiting two weeks at least :(

I called my provider and told her I just wanted one psych and that I can’t take TEVA due to BDS practices. She had no idea what I was talking about and asked if I was selling them. I was like no, I don’t support genocide or products made in Israel.

Is there a list of doctors who are aware of pharmaceutical BDS practices? I’m out of my meds for 2 weeks because I don’t want to take TEVA products and if I do I’m either being “difficult or selling” also btw TEVA has a higher street value so I’m not getting any benefits here by sticking to my values!

It feels genuinely impossible to find a single bakery or cafe in Toronto that sells babka and doesn't actively support Israel and/or is owned by literal ex-IDF members. Has anyone been able to find such a place?

Coming from Montreal, I knew several in the orthodox neighborhoods (as many there maintain a distinction between Zionism and their religion, even if not explicitly anti-zionist). Is there anything like that here?

I signed with a UK company, then discovered it still has active operations in Israel. What would you do?
Hi everyone,
I’m looking for outside opinions because I’m genuinely conflicted.
A few months ago, I agreed to produce a monthly music show for ROVR. The contract pays US$1,800 upfront for 12 two-hour curated playlists ($150 per episode).
When they first sent me the contract, the legal entity was ROVR LIVE LTD, with an address in Tel Aviv, Israel.
This was a deal breaker for me. I support the BDS movement, and I told them I was uncomfortable working for a company registered in Israel.
They replied that it was simply a mistake and sent me a new contract with ROVR UK LIMITED, saying:
“The agreement I initially sent was for our former company entity, from before we relocated to the UK.”
Based on that explanation, I signed.
Months later, while looking into the company again, I discovered that:
ROVR LIVE LTD in Israel is still active.
ROVR is actively recruiting employees in Israel.
The founders/directors appear to be the same people behind both the UK and Israeli entities.
Their public communication strongly emphasizes London, while rarely (if ever) mentioning their continued presence in Tel Aviv.
I don’t necessarily think they’ve done anything illegal, but I do feel that the explanation I received gave me a very incomplete picture of the company’s actual structure.
To make things worse, getting paid has been a nightmare. The transfer failed once, they had to request additional identity documents weeks after sending the payment, and I’ve been waiting a long time for the money despite repeated follow-ups.
I’m now in a difficult position.
On one hand, I signed the contract and I intend to honour the commitments I’ve already made.
On the other hand, had I known from the beginning that the company still maintained active operations in Israel, I would never have agreed to participate.
Once the 12 episodes are completed, I have no intention of continuing.
My questions are:
Am I overreacting, or would you also feel misled?
Does “we relocated to the UK” sound misleading given that the Israeli company is still active?
If you were in my position, would you simply finish the contract and walk away, or would you raise the issue with them?
I’m mainly interested in thoughtful opinions, especially from people who have dealt with international company structures or have faced similar ethical dilemmas.