For the last couple of weeks, internet conspiracy theorists have been spreading a story that Starbucks is funding the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The story is based on lies and a hoax - but it found a ready audience in protestors who trashed a Starbucks outlet in Kensington High Street, opposite the Israeli embassy. Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked, today published a thorough debunking of the Starbucks conspiracy theory. It makes fascinating reading:
For the past two weeks, internet discussion forums and mobile phone networks have been bombarded with the following message: ‘Starbucks and McDonald’s are donating their next two weeks of earned revenue to Israel. Please BOYCOTT them and forward this message to everyone you know.’ Other versions of the message say Starbucks and McDonald’s are ‘donating their next two weeks of earned revenue to the Israeli military’.
All nonsense, but try telling that to the morons of the anti-war Left. O’Neill continues:
The rumour has stuck faster to Starbucks than it has to the other corporations. Some point out that the individuals who smashed up Starbucks on Kensington High Street were a ‘violent minority’, yet the anti-Starbucks sentiment was a central part of Saturday’s 50,000-strong demonstration. At the rally in Hyde Park earlier in the day, the rapper Lowkey, one of the invited speakers, was wildly cheered when he attacked companies – including Starbucks – that have ‘Zionist’ links: ‘You say you know about the Zionist lobby, but you put money in their pockets every time you’re buying their coffee.’ A combination of internet rumour, text messages that spread like wildfire, and condemnation of ‘Zionist coffee’ from a platform shared by Bianca Jagger, Annie Lennox and Lauren Booth (sister-in-law to Tony Blair) may have rattled and riled the protesters into believing that Starbucks is part of the Israeli war machine. No wonder they later smashed up one of its shops.
However, it is completely untrue that Starbucks funds the Israeli military. In response to the social-networking conspiracy-mongering, Starbucks released a statement saying that the ‘rumours that Starbucks Coffee Company… supports Israel are unequivocally false’.
Aha, say the morons, but we have proof – a letter from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz:
Many of the claims about ‘Zionist coffee’ and a link between Starbucks and the Israeli military spring from a letter allegedly written by CEO Howard Schultz. Dated 11 July 2006, and titled ‘A Thank You To All Starbucks Customers’, Schultz apparently said that ‘with every cup you drink at Starbucks you are helping with a noble cause’: ensuring the ‘continued viability and prospering of the Jewish State’. Schultz seems to say that the $5 billion donated by America to Israel every year is ‘no way near enough to pay for all the weaponry, bulldozers and security fences needed to protect innocent Israeli citizens from anti-Semitic Muslim terrorism. Corporate sponsorships are essential [too]’. Schultz thanks Starbucks customers for helping him to raise ‘hundreds of millions of dollars each year’ to support the state of Israel. This seemingly Starbucks-damning letter has been on the internet for two-and-a-half years, and it now underpins much of the current anti-Starbucks, pro-Gaza protesting. It has appeared on anti-war websites; it has been cited as evidence by those spreading the ‘Boycott Starbucks’ SMS; Daily Egypt, an English-language paper in Cairo, says that ‘Egyptians and Arabs [have been] circulating emails’ containing the Schultz letter.
I bet they have. But the Muslim world isn’t big on fact-checking, in my experience, and they’ve been suckered again, as O’Neill reports:
However, the ‘Schultz letter’ is a hoax; worse than that, it’s a piece of satire that has been accepted by some people as fact. The letter was written, not by Schultz, but by Andrew Winkler, an Australian-based ‘anti-Zionist media activist’ of German origin. It was published as a parody of Schultz, and clearly advertised as a parody, on the anti-Zionist website ZioPedia on 11 July 2006. Winkler later wrote: ‘The Howard Schultz spoof letter has caused quite a bit of a stir… Howard Schultz never wrote that letter, I did.’ Yet now it has become something like a modern, internet-shared version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: a hoax document supposedly written by a Jew which is cited by some people as evidence of Zionist wickedness.
So there you have it. Anti-war liberals can go back into Starbucks and talk bollocks to each other over their extra-drizzle soy caramel macchiatos, safe in the knowledge that not a penny of it is going to Israel. They might even want to stick an extra shot in their drink, because fulminating against Zionism is so terribly tiring…
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
20 responses
Christ. What makes this even more bizarre is that in 2001 Starbucks closed all their stores in Israel, and a lot of pro-Israelis were outraged.
Snopes on Starbucks
I sometimes think, forget left & right or Jew & Muslim, the most important division in the world is between the kind of people who believe that kind of crap and the kind who don’t.
Humans are a predictable lot. That which is said directly is disbelieved especially if uninteresting and that said in passing is taken with credulity, especially if it is in line with their lesser nature. You try to teach and they become suspicious and disbelieving. Look at the trouble of getting kids to learn for instance. Say it in passing such as an entertainment magazine at the checkout and it becomes fact that Brittney is having someone’s love child.
If the newspapers print it, it must be true, because why would they lie if they weren’t specifically aiming it at them?
People are not as brilliant as we want to think and desperately hope they would be.
This probably comes from the true store that Caribou Coffee is owned by the First Islamic Investment Bank. It would be a true statement to say that Caribou Coffee was helping to fund the Palestinian intifada.
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/caribou.asp
the issue people have with starbucks and israel is not the company’s support, but the CEO’s. the way they figure, if you keep your money out of the stores, you keep it out of his pockets, and he won’t donate it to causes he feels strongly about (causes that they might feel strongly against).
starbucks is overrated and overpriced anyways, ehich is why i stopped going a long time ago. my wallet is the cause i feel most strongly about….
Anti-war liberals can go back into Starbucks and talk bollocks to each other
Perhaps because I am an American, I don’t quite understand how British “liberalism” logically flows into support of Hamas and other groups that murder homosexuals, oppress women, and call for a world-wide genocide of Jews in their founding charter even before they shoot their first rocket.
Might someone please explain that to me? I have long thought I was a liberal, but apparently I’m getting something terribly wrong.
“Perhaps because I am an American, I don’t quite understand how British “liberalism” logically flows into support of Hamas and other groups that murder homosexuals, oppress women, and call for a world-wide genocide of Jews in their founding charter even before they shoot their first rocket.”
It doesn’t. The “anti-war movement” isn’t as representative of the British left (an important point, in the UK “liberal” isn’t usually used as a synonym for “leftwing” generally, it tends to mean someone on the centre-left) as both it and many of its opponents would like to think.
Also, of those protesting against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, I suspect very few support Hamas. It’s hypocritical of them to focus only on Israel’s fighting, of course, but that doesn’t mean they actually support Hamas.
“It’s hypocritical of them to focus only on Israel’s fighting”
Based on years of reading the BBC website, I was of the impression hypocritically ignoring attacks on Jews in general and Israel in particular (and using anecdotal evidence in order to exaggerate Israeli responses) was a rather centrist position in the UK. It certainly creates sympathy for Hamas’ strategies and causes– which, I find to be untenable from an anti-war perspective.
Of course, I’m making the assumption that the BBC World Service is centrist or centre-left news organisation– though, I may be incorrect on that matter.
And yes, I’m generally referred to as being “liberal” or “on the left,” just to make it clear that I’m only taking issue with hypocrisy regarding a clutch of related issues, and not with “liberalism” or “the left” in general.
I assume you mean the BBC’s notorious “have your say”? Yes, people on that can be very shouty and very stupid but I wouldn’t take them as a barometer of British public opinion. Those sort of messageboards tend to attract extremists, conpiracists, racists and the likes and scare rational people off. It’s similar to phone-in radio shows in that regard.
Most people over here seem to just be utterly fed up of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and there seems to be less and less sympathy for polarised opinions on the issue.
“Of course, I’m making the assumption that the BBC World Service is centrist or centre-left news organisation– though, I may be incorrect on that matter.”
The BBC is nominally impartial and, despite what a lot of people claim, it sticks to that pretty well. Having said that, there are a lot of “crusading” journalists working for the Beeb who mistake a point of view for the truth and they sometimes distort things. One of the worst examples I recall was around the invasion of Iraq when a Radio 4 (I think) journalist was supposed to give a news report and instead went of a rant. Generally, though, that sort of thing is very very rare.
As for Israel-Palestine, I don’t really take sides in that conflict and I don’t have the slightest problem with the BBC’s reporting on the issue which is generally pretty-good and tends to try and cover all bases. A good example was during the Israeli desettlement of Gaza where BBC news interviewed Israeli settlers, Israeli government officials, Palestinians in Gaza etc.
What’s amazing is that people will quickly believe this kind of junk so quickly, yet they’ll doubt 9-11 and the Mumbai massacre with all the evidence. Then, when actually faced with staged material on the BBC and CNN, they’ll believe it without question.
Looks like not enough people read this post:
“Young men - many wearing scarves covering their faces - clashed with police on Saturday, with one group seen kicking in the front window of a Starbucks coffee shop.”
Key question - who are these “young men”? Could they, just possibly, be Muslim? All we know from the article is that they are “anti-Israel” and wear “scarves” that look an awful lot like kafiyahs.
“What’s amazing is that people will quickly believe this kind of junk so quickly, yet they’ll doubt 9-11 and the Mumbai massacre with all the evidence. Then, when actually faced with staged material on the BBC and CNN, they’ll believe it without question.”
From what I can gather, it’s never been proved that such footage is actually staged, people (who seem to be largely pro-Israeli advocates) simply claim it is. What’s more, the conspiracist tone and general “vibe” of websites carrying these claims (not as claims but as “facts”) have more than a whiff of “truther” sites about them.
It is, of course, highly-likely that Palestinian “freelance journalists” will frame incidents to look as “bad” as possible but I find it unlikely that a Palestinian journalist running around Gaza during an Israeli bombardment would actually need to stage scenes of Palestinian misery. 9/11 conspiracism is largely about people not wanting to deal with something and so spinning yarns to create a world that’s easier for them to deal with. This lot, I suspect, are motivated by the same.
“Key question - who are these “young men”? Could they, just possibly, be Muslim? All we know from the article is that they are “anti-Israel” and wear “scarves” that look an awful lot like kafiyahs.”
They might be, they might not be. A lot of studenty “political” types who get involved in political violence wear those. During the “anti-globalisation” protests there were a lot of people wearing headscarfs to conceal their identity.
Matty - it depends on what you mean by “proven.” CNN’s hospital video (if you watched and listened to the liveleak post in full - and no, it’s not me with the Darth Vader voice) at best is a re-enactment. The supposed roof damage looks nothing like what would come from an Israeli missile (e.g., some pockmarks and the clothes still on the line). The boy, according to Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911591418168902.html) died on the 1st not the 7th as the video claims. There are inconsistencies between the many versions published on video and print: was the brother our filming or in his home? one rocket or two? massive head wounds or not? on respirator or not?. Then the owner of the producing company, Paul Martin, actually went to those blogs to defend, and ended up basically saying “trust me” without any evidence. He even admitted to never even viewing the video before sending out to BBC and CNN.
As to the “vibe” of the blogs. The blog that broke the story was LGF. This is the same blog that broke the story on Bush’s forged documents as well as on Fauxtography during the Lebanese war of 2006. These claims are now considered facts by all except maybe Dan Rather. In this very incident, LGF has simply asked for the rushes so that we can all know what happened. I don’t see the troofer feel in this comment by LGF: “A good point about the disputed CNN Gaza hospital video, from Richard Landes: Let’s See Mr. Mashharawi’s Rushes.” Hopefully, we’ll get them.
I agree that there might not be a need to frame incidents, but that doesn’t mean it’s not done. The Al-Durah blood libel is proof that it is done as France 2 learned in it’s court case.
Now, OTOH, if there really is a need to stage incidents then it is important to know. In a sense, fake news really becomes news, and this is why it is important to learn the facts. I completely admit that this last step is conjecture, however, the CNN video wasn’t the first event in this war. France 2 falsely reported a 2005 Hamas rally where live ordinance killed many as a 2009 Israeli attack. France 2 even admitted it this time, eventually. There are other cases if you’re interested. These is not conspiracy theory around a large, great tragedy such as 9-11. This is about creating blood libel as often as possible by manipulating and sometimes fabricating small-scale events.
Matty - on the Starbucks attack. My point there is that in order for citizens like us to understand what is happening, we need facts not white-washed reporting. For example, it was a kafiyah not a simple scarf.
You’re right. They may not have been Muslims, but why couldn’t the journalist find out? Also, if the journalist did know, do you think it would have been reported? I can’t remember the last time I saw an article that describing a crime committed by a Muslim as opposed to a “youth.” As an example, it took me about 30 seconds with Google to find this article. Note the name - clearly he is Muslim yet he is called an “Asian youth.” This article is almost ridiculous - it always uses the phrase “youth,” yet discusses how the Muslim community condemned the crime, which “which police did categorise as a “faith-hate” crime. ” The phrasing is incredible. Can’t we just get the damn news as it is as opposed to what we want it to be?
I would love it if religion had nothing to do with it. I would love it if Muslims were becoming more tolerant of other religions. OTOH, I prefer to read the facts (all the facts) as they are. I don’t believe in “spinning yarns to create a world that’s easier for them to deal with.” BTW, I am not quoting you to make fun. I really liked your phrasing, and also find your comments quite reasonable.
My reference to BBC has been the actual reportage over the years regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. A number of critics have pointed to its rather irresponsible reporting of the 2002 “Jenin Massacre” which turned out to be propaganda coming from Arafat’s government.
In addition when we look at BBC’s presentation of the “History of the Middle East Conflict” They conveniently ignore the roughly 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews who were either deported or forced to flee persecution in the Arab countries where they had lived. Note that this is a significantly larger population of refugees than the generally agreed upon figure of about 700,000 Palestinian refugees. That’s just one of the more obvious examples.
It’s often subtle, but there is a certain pattern of bias at BBC in covering the conflict– and certainly some British news organizations seem to follow their lead.
“Also, of those protesting against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, I suspect very few support Hamas. It’s hypocritical of them to focus only on Israel’s fighting, of course, but that doesn’t mean they actually support Hamas.”
I think you’ll find few who openly support Hamas. But are they going to go around saying that in front of the public? The George Galloway/Respect types, though, do support Hamas–they call them the resistance–and there are many others who sympathize with them. They may not be members of Islamist organizations, but they’d have us believe that Hamas is a democratic organization, that they represent the legitimate, moral interests of the Palestinians. The slogan is not “We Are All Hezbollah” as in 2006, it is “We Are All Palestinians” — but implicit in this is that Hamas *is* Palestine in a manner Hezbollah did not share with wider Lebanon.
It’s interesting how the Spiked piece describes the antiwar groups as a mix of “teenage Pakistanis, 1990s anti-capitalists, anti-Zionists and the middle-aged rump of the radical left”. One could say that anti-Semitism is a driving force, and I think one would probably be correct to say that, but it is an eclectic group with no clear mission so it is difficult to sort out the anti-Semitic anti-Zionism with simple opposition on humanitarian grounds. That there are fascists at these marches is not unbelievable at all, either, which makes me think that there’s some cross pollenization going on between the Islamists, the radical Right, and the Left.
Its offensive to say that “muslims” do not do research. I could give you plenty of times when a mass of people spread ridiculous rumors and it has nothing to do with religion (example McCain Campaign 2008).
Maybe you do not understand that once a serious accusation like this has come up, it is difficult to ignore. The issue of Palestine is close to the hearts of many. ANY accusation will be taken seriously. It is true it is our duty to do the research behind it, as I am trying now. But it is not easy. Unfortunately as much as I’d like to believe you, your word is as good as the ones who made the claim. You have no proof so what you say could be true or false. I now have to continue researching and it could take weeks to find the truth. But until then I’m not drinking starbucks. Its not worth it if its true. And if its not, then who cares if starbucks didn’t swindle me out of ten bucks for a cup of overpriced coffee two times out of the couple weeks past. I’m sure your investments will be fine.
Incoming links from other sites