Starbucks and Israel
Is the massive coffee chain really funding genocide? Short answer is: no, and they never have. Here's the truth about their connection to Israel-Palestine.
Introduction:
Selective outrage struck again as it does on the internet when leftists get bored, when SJWs across social media platforms and pro-Palestinian activist groups began calling for the boycotting of everyone's favorite coffee chain giant− Starbucks. Some of the claims we're blatantly and outrageously false like that the company directly sends funds to the IDF, they've taken a Pro-Israel political stance, and that they've come out with products in order to save face in the wake of public backlash. Here's the facts.
Activist Outrage
Following the reigniting of the conflict, activists posted on social media and protestors chanted their ways through the streets of New York City and other major cities, "Starbucks Starbucks you can’t hide, you make drinks for genocide.” The accusations about the company's support for Israel have been perpetuated for much earlier than directly after October of 2023. While Starbucks did not give information about where the rumor originated, Spokesman for the company Jim Olson denied any involvement or support of the occupation in a released statement to CNN in 2014. He claimed, "Starbucks does not support any political or religious causes, and that holds true for (CEO) Howard [Schultz] as well," Olson said. "There's no financial support from Howard or the company to the Israeli government for any purposes." CNN noted that, "The company has publicly refuted claims about its support for Israel before, but reiterated its position because it saw an "uptick in false rumors out there about Starbucks and the Middle East,". CNN further commented on a popular boycott site where the allegations were being promoted saying, "a fast-growing campaign on the app Buycott, which is a platform where anyone can start and publicize a boycott, has targeted Starbucks for what it says is the company's support for "the occupation of Palestine." Editor Ben Brody continues to clarify, "Since users create Buycott campaigns, the app says it cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information they contain. The campaign has attracted more than 240,000 participants in the past month." Lastly, the very popular amongst lefist activist, the Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions (BDS) organization, has never once listed Starbucks as a company to boycott.
About the CEO:
Former CEO Howard Schultz, ran the company "from 1986 to 2000, from 2008 to 2017, and interim CEO from 2022 to 2023". According to Schult'z wikipedia page, "In 1998, Schultz received the 'Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award' for "playing a key role in promoting a close alliance between the United States and Israel". The award, which honored Schultz's philanthropic and community service work was completely untethered to the ongoing conflict between the two states. In the early 2000s, "Starbucks faced boycotts under [Schultz’s] leadership due to his (failed) attempt to expand stores in Israel and for his pro-Israel views". Per a CNN 2003 article, "The company, which is known for flooding markets with its stores, also pointed out that it closed all of its stores in Israel in 2003 because of "operational challenges.". Schultz's decision to step down in September 2023 was completely unrelated, at least on face value, to the conflict in Gaza and linked to labor union controversies- although, debateably a reason to boycott the company; however, still not about Palestine. Many activists have claimed that these are sufficient reasons to believe that their weekly matcha is contributing to the ongoing genocide, and that the coffee chain giant supports the Israeli armies' and government's actions; however, I remain largely unconvinced of this as simply having a CEO who has connections with the country and is in support of them existing is not sufficient evidence that the company profits support the Israeli government. I would hope that the rational reader here also finds this to be insufficient evidence so far.
They went on to claim that Schultz had contributed directly to the military's war efforts. But immediately following the October 7th rekindling of the conflict, Starbucks released a statement on their site (as they continued to do multiple times after) responding to the accusations saying, " Neither Starbucks nor the company’s former chairman, president and ceo Howard Schultz provide financial support to the Israeli government and/or the Israeli Army in any way."
Another reason activists have claimed that the company supports the administration is that the on-and-off CEO had from 2021 to 2024 contributed funds to an Israeli cybersecurity company. According to the Israel-based company's wikipedia page, "The company's platform analyzes computing infrastructure hosted in Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, and Kubernetes for combinations of risk factors that could allow malicious actors to gain control of cloud resources and/or exfiltrate valuable data". While it is possible that the IDF used the cybersecurity company via one of these cloud platforms, there is not evidence to my knowledge of this, and I doubt these activists have obtained any as well. Activists then falsely accused the company of being one that contributes directly to the IDF via Wiz's cybersecurity services, which once again, no evidence is to be found for.
Many have taken issue with the founders (Assaf Rappaport and others) of the cybersecurity company's service in the IDF prior to the inception of the company. However, this is ridiculous for a few reasons. Anyone even vaguely familiar with Israel's laws around military service would know that the government requires citizens to serve in their armed forces with extremely minimal exceptions. Naturally, if you start up a company as an Israeli citizen or donate to a company owned by Israeli citizens, you're nearly guaranteed to be or work with someone who has served. To say that anyone who creates business relations with an Israeli citizen ought to seek out someone who has no affiliation with the IDF would be the highest moral bar I have seen in a while that I dont believe any of these activists would meet given the same circumstances. Additionally, Rappaport served in the military in 2001 (long before the October 7th event) as a cybersecurity personnel. Subsequently, he went on to choose the most obvious career path given his experience in cybersecurity with big names in tech like Microsoft, ultimately starting up his own company which was later acquired by Google.
The groupchat- the place of all modern scandals in the age of the internet. Schultz almost right before officially stepping down from Starbucks was present in a groupchat "from October 2023 through early May 2024 with some of the United States' most powerful business leaders with the stated goals of "chang[ing] the narrative" in favor of Israel and "help[ing] win the war". While Schultz attended meetings with Israeli officials and others in support of the government, "a spokesperson said he "did not participate in, or contribute financially to, any of the group's work." But, once again, this involvement was neither linked to Starbucks and was close to and post-Schultz's time with the company, meaning no one's morning latte was funding genocide at this time even if we pretended Schultz actually used company funds to support their military efforts.
Starbucks Stakeholders
Among Starbucks stakeholders are companies like Vanguard and BlackRock. While both of these companies are known investors in manufacturers that support the IDF, "these linkages are not because of the actions of Starbucks or its current leadership, but instead reflect the actions of its major investors." These stakeholders actions, even if wrong in their own right, don't force Starbucks to donate to any foreign or domestic military or cause (which there is no evidence that they have ever done).
Starbucks Union Disputes
In 2023, 2 days after the Oct 7th occurence, the companies Union, Starbucks Workers United, posted on X declaring its “Solidarity with Palestine!” (which has since been removed). Starbucks, in response, proceeded to file a lawsuit against the union arguing that the logo being used in conjuction with the social media post was angering to customers who mistakenly believed that the post was an official action by the company and therefore was "damaging to their reputation". Starbucks used evidence containing multiple social media posts including one from Florida Republican politician Randy Fine where he obviously in reactionary-style tweeted out, “If you go to Starbucks, you are supporting killing Jews.” The union then filed a countersuit claiming the chain's statement that the Union's post was in support of violence perpetrated by Hamas was defamatory. While it is unclear what exactly the settlement between the Union and Starbucks proper was, one was reached. Starbucks was also not the only company to ever have sued a Union over these types of copyright infringement claims. Back in January of 2024, Trader Joe's levied almost identical complaints about the sale of items by their union workers that appeared too similar in branding to the grocer's logo. Although they lost the suit to the union, it points out that the type of suit initiated by Starbucks is not unique in the realm of company-union relations.
Starbucks' Official Statements Post Oct 7th
Per Starbucks' official website, they released a statement almost immediately after the October 7th event stating the following, "As a leadership team, we want to again express our deepest sympathy for those who have been killed, wounded, displaced and impacted following the heinous acts of terror, escalating violence and hate against the innocent in Israel and Gaza this week. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of hate, terrorism and violence."
Starbucks' Long History of Donations
In December of 2023, in order to try to push back to those making accusations about the company allegedly supporting Israel (which they have vehemently disavowed the violence of) Duncan Moir, the President of Starbucks Europe, released this statement, "The Starbucks Foundation, along with global licensee partners, have provided over $3 million to World Central Kitchen to provide more than 1 million meals to families in Gaza." The Starbucks Foundations stated mission is to provide grants to nonprofit organizations like the World Central Kitchen and promote community wellness. Another statement by the company following the outbreak in conflict reads, "Our hearts break for all affected by the violence and conflict in the Middle East". Not only did they actively donate to the World Central Kitchen to provide food to Gaza, but continued to support the delivering of aid to Palestinians. They reference this work in (once again) a public statement: "To expand our support from the region, Alshaya Group and Starbucks EMEA [Starbucks Europe, Middle East and Africa] has launched a partner (employee) donation matching initiative aimed at raising additional funds for food aid in Gaza through World Central Kitchen. Alshaya group is a franchise retailer based in Kuwait. The last statement I'll use as supporting evidence that Starbucks has never supported Israel is this one released in December 2023: "Despite false statements spread through social media, Starbucks has never contributed to any government or military operation in any way."
Watermelon Mug Drama
Probably the most silly claim made by online activists during the resurfaced focus on the Middle Eastern conflict is that in an attempt to save face, Starbucks came out with a performative line of watermelon coffee mugs to prove their solidarity with Palestinians. To no one's surprise by now if you have read this post so far, the claim was false. The mug was released in the UK in May 2023 as a part of their early Summer collection.
Dean Withers and Audience Image
This portion of the write-up is not a Dean Withers hit piece and hopefully no one interprets it that way in bad faith. I disagree with Dean on a lot. Sadly, he has not reached out in DMs about some of his grievances with me, but due to its' relevance to this post, I'll address a recent problem I find with an action he took lately. In May of 2025, Dean Withers decided to join the UnFuck America tour organized by Zee Cohen-Sanchez, a long-time political campaign organizer for the Democratic party. After some drama perpetuated by crazy online leftists, Dean decides to leave the tour. In some attempt to address the situation with half the tour dropping out, Zee joined a livestream with liberal commentator Destiny (Steven Bonnell II) on his YouTube channel. During the session, Zee revealed (50:00) that during the first stop of the tour, an employee had taken orders for a Starbucks run that was paid for completely. Upon returning, Dean told the employee or Zee that he would not be drinking his coffee from the Starbucks' labeled cup and that someone needed to find another cup to pour the drink into. To anyone witnessing this revelation, it seems clear that Dean does not actually hold the belief that one should boycott Starbucks to high regard and simply made the request to appear to his audience in a positive light.
Why Does This Matter?
You may be curious: "If all of this is lies or overexaggerations by online outraged leftists and Starbucks isn't supporting the Israeli government, why would you spend hours out of your day defending a company who makes mid coffee, has had many a clash with their unions, and is overpriced, anyways. Why not just get your coffee and go if you know the truth?". It's important for a few reasons and it's equally important to question why I care. Firstly, as individuals and many online pursue social and political goals, we ought to have accurate information about the causes we champion for the sake of the virtue of holding true beliefs and by extension taking action predicated on those beliefs. The issue of this post is not to tell you there is no reason to publicly or privately boycott Starbucks (even though I don't think there is a rational reason to). The goal is to ensure people have true information about something they are seemingly passionate about. A common problem I have seen over the years I have been involved in social justice both online and in person is a total lack of fact checking by both sides. This faux selective outrage based on false misinformation becomes spread and seemingly as a part of the left's version of anti-intellectualism, no one ever verifies if information spread is true. I understand the automatic desire to fight the Bourgeosie in whatever way because, "Eat the rich for the revolution!"; however, your time is better spent more effectively on spreading truth and calling for actions. I'd hate for this to be a silly reason the right gets another easy dunk on lazy leftists who have access to google. Lastly, this matters because Starbucks' profits dropped significantly after the calls for boycotts. When Starbucks' profits dip, their ability to also support humanitarian aid to countries like Gaza also becomes stifled even if minmally. Per the Daily Texan in a 2024 article, "By February [2024], sales in every campus shop with Starbucks licensing decreased." If you care about Starbucks' Union workers at all, you should care about the company having profits to continue paying their workers conditional on them not actively supporting a genocide.
Final Remarks
Hopefully, I have convinced you by the end of this that you have no rational reason to feel astronomical moral guilt when you get that morning nitro cold brew daily boost (besides maybe if you order one with dairy-based cream which you should feel moral guilt over) based on the false premise that Starbucks is a performative Israel-funding corporation. Closing remarks on my end if you didn't care to read all this. TLDR: Activists online calling for boycotts of Starbucks because they "support Israel's genocide of the Palestinians" over the past few years have either been outrightly lying publicly or confused (maybe a combination of both), are perpetuators of the disinformation train and the anti-intellectualism disease on the left, and have been acting needlessly in ways when their activism efforts could have been more effectively allocated to other causes and may actually have been hurting the Starbucks Union Workers they claim to care about in the process.
I could add an adendum to Karl Marx's famous line, "Workers of the world unite [effectively and fact-check shit]!"
Original Blog Post with Citations Linked:
https://throughthelens00.wixsite.com/fixingthenarratives/is-starbucks-funding-genocide
Check out my LinkTree for all the stuff I do:
https://linktr.ee/throughthelensdiscourse