Alan Bett (@alanbett) from Scotland mocks and trivializes the grassroots boycott movement against companies perceived as complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, calling participants “pathetic,” “embarrassing,” and “annoying” for “jumping on the bandwagon.”
Alan Bett, a TikTok personality based in Scotland, ridicules global solidarity efforts with Palestine by dismissing boycott activists as pathetic bandwagon-jumpers, thereby minimizing non-violent resistance to Israel’s ongoing genocide and prioritizing personal convenience/
Everyday People
Alan Bett, a TikTok user from Scotland operating under the handle @alanbett, has actively trivialized and mocked the popular boycott movement that seeks to exert economic pressure on corporations seen as enabling Israel’s genocide and settler-colonial occupation of Palestine.
Bett directly targets individuals participating in the boycott, declaring that anyone refusing to buy Starbucks or similar brands is “pathetic,” “embarrassing,” and simply “jumping on the bandwagon” to annoy people. By framing ethical consumer choices as performative and irritating rather than legitimate acts of solidarity, Bett diminishes the significance of non-violent resistance and attempts to shame Palestinians’ supporters into silence.
This rhetoric serves to normalize continued financial flows to corporations whose leadership or shareholders maintain deep ties to Israel’s military and surveillance apparatus, even as Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza has slaughtered well over 40,000 Palestinians according to conservative counts—actual deaths almost certainly reaching hundreds of thousands given the deliberate destruction of healthcare infrastructure, targeting of journalists, and mass graves uncovered across the territory.
Bett’s public ridicule of boycott participants functions as a deliberate counter-signal: a performative rejection of Palestinian liberation and an assertion that personal comfort and consumer habits must remain untouched regardless of the scale of atrocity. In the current context, where every purchase has been politicized, such mockery aligns with efforts to undermine global solidarity and manufacture consent for Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing and apartheid regime.
By choosing contempt over engagement with the realities of occupation and genocide, Alan Bett contributes to the broader pattern of silencing and dehumanization that allows Israel’s violence to continue with impunity.
Starbucks Boycott:
While boycotting Starbucks is warranted based on its unethical track record and it’s former CEO’s ties to Israeli cyber-surveillance firms, it should not be conflated with or represented as an official BDS campaign targeting companies complicit in occupied Palestinian territories.
Starbucks is not officially on the BDS boycott list for companies directly involved in oppressing Palestinians and so should not be targeted with the same intensity — doing so risks minimizing the focused work of Palestinian solidarity movements.
The reasoning behind the Starbucks boycott instead stems from its union-busting tactics and unethical business practices; namely sending cease-and-desist letters and filing lawsuits against pro-Palestinian voices within its workers' union.
While reprehensible, their silencing of protestors was an attempt to clamp down on union activism rather than a pro-Israel stance; in actuality, Starbucks has largely maintained a neutral corporate position on the Palestinian issue itself.
That being said, there are many legitimate ethical concerns with Starbucks worthy of boycott for reasons. These include issues around supply chain management, workers' rights, human rights violations, tax avoidance, environmental impacts, enabling factory farming practices and the investments of former CEO, Howard Schutlz.
Former CEO Howard Schultz's investments in Israeli cyber-surveillance firms like Wiz are also hugely problematic, especially as he has the 6th largest share of Starbucks with 21,795,538 shares (1.93%) valued at $1,991,894,218 as of 18/04/2024 — meaning he is directly benefiting monetarily from Starbucks. With this in mind, the act of visibly consuming Starbucks products has also taken on new symbolic meanings for some Zionist entities and individuals in the current political climate. As efforts to boycott companies complicit in Palestinian oppression gain momentum, publicly committing to consumerism has become a way for certain groups to overtly signal their rejection of such boycotts.
By ostentatiously patronizing Starbucks, certain individuals are attempting to declare their opposition to the non-violent economic pressure tactics employed by the Palestinian solidarity campaigns. This brandishing of Starbucks effectively co-opts the brand into a display of anti-Palestinian ideology, despite the company's official neutrality on the issue.
As such, the simple act of buying a Starbucks drink has been politicized as a statement against Palestinian rights by those who oppose the boycott efforts targeting the Israeli occupation.
Silence = Complicity:
For those who have passionately spoken out against other instances of genocide and massacres, yet fall silent when it comes to the suffering endured by Palestinians, their silence becomes a glaring indictment of the value placed on Palestinian lives and perpetuates a dangerous narrative that suggests Palestinian suffering is somehow less worthy of outrage, less deserving of empathy and less human than that of others.
By choosing silence in the face of Palestinian suffering, those with influential platforms inadvertently contribute to the erasure of Palestinian voices and experiences. They perpetuate a narrative of invisibility that allows the injustices inflicted upon Palestinians to continue unabated, shielded from the spotlight of global scrutiny.
Their silence sends a chilling message of complicity to the world – one that suggests Palestinian lives are expendable, their struggles inconsequential and their humanity negotiable. It emboldens perpetrators of violence and oppression, granting them impunity under the guise of indifference.
To remain silent in the face of Palestinian suffering is to betray the very essence of activism – the relentless pursuit of justice for all, without exception or equivocation. It’s a betrayal not only of the Palestinian people but of the universal principles of human dignity and equality and instead is a tacit endorsement of the dehumanization and marginalization of an entire population.
True activism demands consistency and integrity, an unwavering commitment to speaking truth to power and standing in solidarity with the marginalized and oppressed, regardless of geography or politics.
BDS Boycott:
The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement is a global campaign which follows the worldwide boycott movement that led to the successful dismantling of apartheid in South Africa and therefore advocates for various sustained forms of boycott against Israel until it complies with international law.
Founded as a response to the rampant, ongoing and systemic dispossession, displacement, and disenfranchisement endured by generations of Palestinians, the BDS movement is in direct response to the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements, the imposition of discriminatory laws and the denial of basic rights to millions living under occupation, apartheid or in exile with no right of return.
Central to the ethos of BDS is the belief that every purchase and action carries a weighty moral responsibility. To buy goods from or actively support companies or organizations on the BDS list is to cast a vote in favor of perpetuating injustice, a tacit endorsement of the status quo of occupation and discrimination. It’s a direct violation of the collective conscience, a betrayal of the fundamental principles of human rights and dignity.
By pressuring Israel and its supporters by withdrawing support and capital, humanity aims to bring awareness to — and ultimately — end the occupation of Palestine, grant equal rights to all Palestinians and recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. This pressure also extends to any individuals and entities found to be complicit in the normalization, funding or support of Israel’s brutal occupation and 75+ years of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Tell us why Alan Bett should be removed by emailing us at [email protected]