Don't get me wrong, I totally support economic sabotage and property damage as legitimate tools in our struggles but I'm not 100% convinced by the targeting of Starbucks in this situation and wonder what those doing it hope it will achieve. The connection between the company and Israel seems to come down solely to the CEO who apparently is a staunch supporter of Israel. Whether the support is anything other than verbal is unclear but lets assume it is more than that, like maybe he raises fund, lobbies or pulls political strings. However, what does that have to do with the company and how would pressure on the company franchises effect that? I'm guessing that the best guess scenario would be a shareholder revolt forcing a change of CEO. This would perhaps be a victory of sorts but not going to happen in the next few weeks and not going to effect the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

On the other hand, smashing stuff up always sends a message regardless of other effects so as a symbolic action it still has something going for it and is often inspiring and empowering.

That said, if you are going to risk arrest you might as well make it count. Targeting Tescos and other supermarkets that stock Israeli products seems to have a lot clearer benefits with potentially quite rapid results. It is entirely possible that supermarkets could be forced to switch suppliers and stop stocking specific products which would piss of Israeli companies who obviously have an direct influence on the decisions made by the Israeli regime.

Anyway, that's just my current thought. Below is a piece I found about a spoof letter allegedly written by CEO Howard Schultz which apparently explains to some degree how Starbucks ended up a target of hatred (beyond the obvious fact that it's a huge evil mega corp that is destroying communities, trashing the environment and exploiting people throughout the world)...

"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 (8). 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 (9).

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.’ (10) 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."

Just because there was A hoax letter:

 http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html

Doesn't mean to say there is no substance to the Israel link; as even that Snopes pages itself acknowledges:

 http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html

He has won an award for is word in promoting trade wit Israel!

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Schultz#Awards



I note that you seem to have posted your mis/disinfo here at least once already.

"an Australian-based ‘anti-Zionist media activist’ of German origin."

Nice bit of back-handed racism there... Cos we know that all 'Krauts' are 'Jewhaters' nudge nudge!

Sigh!

"Count to ten" takes excerpts of an article (without mentioning that he quotes) by one Michael Cohen in The National of today:

 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/16/michael-coren-onj-starbucks.aspx

Which is worth reading ...because of one of the comments:

A reader comments:

"As I sip on my Tall caramel macchiato, Coren is trying to divert attention from the real message of the slaughter in Gaza. I am happy to see that fewer people are actually listening to this narrow-minded Zionist view. Michael Coren and other middle-aged men are becoming less and less relevant. It was nice to see many young people including hundreds of young Jewish men and women at the demonstrations all around the world, it give all of us hope."


People who come up with the argument: "hoax story originated by a "German" (very dubious! A German! Or even more dubious: "a kind of new protocolls of the elders of zion written by an "Austrian-German" (Hitler was an Austrian born German! WHO HAD READ THE PROTOCOLLS!!!!)) just try to divert attention from the real issue, Israel massacring and oppressing the Palestinians.

Robert Fisk (surely of German decent, Fisk, that names rings a bell!) wrote as early as 2002 about Starbucks,

"In 1998, Mr Shultz was awarded the "Israeli 50th Anniversary Tribute Award" from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah, which is strongly critical of Yasser Arafat and insists that the occupied Palestinian territories should be described only as "disputed".

In a speech to Jewish Americans in Seattle earlier this year – at the height of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's, reoccupation of West Bank towns – Starbucks' top man condemned Palestinian "inaction" and announced that "the Palestinians aren't doing their job – they're not stopping terrorism". Gideon Meir, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, complimented Mr Shultz for helping American students to hear "Israeli presentations on the Middle East crisis".
998, Mr Shultz was awarded the "Israeli 50th Anniversary Tribute Award" from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah, which is strongly critical of Yasser Arafat and insists that the occupied Palestinian territories should be described only as "disputed".

In a speech to Jewish Americans in Seattle earlier this year – at the height of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's, reoccupation of West Bank towns – Starbucks' top man condemned Palestinian "inaction" and announced that "the Palestinians aren't doing their job – they're not stopping terrorism". Gideon Meir, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, complimented Mr Shultz for helping American students to hear "Israeli presentations on the Middle East crisis"."

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/starbucks-the-target-of-arab-boycott-for-its-growing-links-to-israel-749289.html

The only thing I quoted was the piece I put in quotes. I have also previously read the stuff about what Shultz has said, done and his awards etc and that doesn't address the fundamental question I hoped to raise which was what can we hope to achieve by putting pressure on Starbucks in this way rather than concentrating on other targets. No amount of supplying links about the CEO offers any insight into that question.

Clearly Shultz himself is not going to change his mind about Israel by us smashing windows of Starbucks franchises so if there is any pressure it must surely be aimed at the company itself. Since Shultz is the CEO then pressure on the company must effect the rest of the board of directors and more importantly the shareholders. So, I ask again, what can we hope to achieve in targeting Starbucks which would not better be achieved in targeting companies that either sell Israeli goods or supply Israel with products, especially products which most actively support their war efforts?

I'm sure it never harms to smash a Starbucks window while passing, just as smashing up a McDonald's is always a good thing but we are surely talking about actions which have some hope in offering immediate assistance to those under attack in Gaza not simply having a general pop at big nasty companies as normal.

count to ten
"I have also previously read the stuff about what Shultz has said, done and his awards etc and that doesn't address the fundamental question I hoped to raise which was what can we hope to achieve by putting pressure on Starbucks in this way rather than concentrating on other targets. No amount of supplying links about the CEO offers any insight into that question."

How is this preventing anyone from concentrating on other targets? Please feel free to go and take action against any target you think might be appropriate - I won't be sitting here saying - oops that wasn't the best one

count to ten
"Clearly Shultz himself is not going to change his mind about Israel by us smashing windows of Starbucks franchises so if there is any pressure it must surely be aimed at the company itself."

Oh I think having several stores attacked is indeed 'aiming pressure' at the company itself. And there are plenty of reasons besides Schultz's odious views to hate Starfucks.

count to ten
"Since Shultz is the CEO then pressure on the company must effect the rest of the board of directors and more importantly the shareholders"

Again, I think it is affecting the whole company and is likely to affect profitability as well. Ultimately it could mean Schultz leaving the company again.

count to ten
"So, I ask again, what can we hope to achieve in targeting Starbucks which would not better be achieved in targeting companies that either sell Israeli goods or supply Israel with products, especially products which most actively support their war efforts?"

Perhaps you missed the fact that an arms company that supplies Israel got trashed this morning. Seems like both can happen in tandem.

count to ten
"I'm sure it never harms to smash a Starbucks window while passing, just as smashing up a McDonald's is always a good thing but we are surely talking about actions which have some hope in offering immediate assistance to those under attack in Gaza not simply having a general pop at big nasty companies as normal."

I'm sure the state is registering the fact that these acts are related to public outrage about their zionist buddy . The more actions the better I would have thought.

 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911715289337400.html

Well the company is headed up by a high-profile pro-active Zionist. The media are making the Israel link. So, so far I think the target is valid... if not 100% kosher ;-)

Would it seem so absurd if it was someone who had shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences heading the company up and AR people were smashing the windows? No. So, just because someone once over-egged the pudding doesn't get Schultz & Starbucks off the hook.

But this isn't Friends of the Earth, and as stated you are free to go and smash the Israeli Embassy's windows, of Carmel-Agrexo's... But ironically, actions against Starbucks are already getting more media attention that the actions against Carmel.

I am opposed to the military assault on Gaza and generally don't object to people having a go at Starbucks. But context is everything - within living memory nazis trashed jewish-owned stores as a prequel to killing millions of jews. Some of these self-indulgent attacks on 'zionist stores' don't seem to have any more justification than they are owned by jews who support Israel - not the same as dropping bombs on people. The emergence of a street fighting alliance between 'black bloc' anarchos and fascist islamists is just as opportunistic and reactionary as the SWP's political alliance with the same right wing religious elements. Not suggesting that there is any kind of deliberate co-operation, but look who's standing next to each other as they charge the police lines by the Israel embassy.

Smashing up a Starbucks with customers and staff inside is wrong, regardless of whether Starbucks is a supporter of Israel, next you will be smashing Chinese Restaurants because of China's oppression of Tibet.

And, and, and next there will be pictures of the cast of the Bill on FITwatch!

And, and, and maybe your lamentably obtuse associations say more about you than anyone else?

I'm just off to burn down my Motel now, if you see Benny, tell him I have left him a new hat in my will.

It is a publicly owned company whose CEO is a Zionist.

You are stealing people's livelihoods. Ordinary working people earn their livings in these places. They have nothing to with Israel.

This is pure fascism.

Yeah fight the fucking power, right? I understand the staff were left cowering inside after this "brave" assault. The Starbucks/Israel funding stuff is a MYTH and even if it weren't, what the fuck is going on - "Kauft nicht bei Juden" eh? You should be ashamed.