“When you have McDonald’s or Coke, you put a country on the map.”
— Zahi Khouri
Daring to revive its market, a Coke ad gaslights: “Listen up, guys, Coke isn’t from that place – Palestine has a Coke factory!”
This Coca-Cola advertisement in Bangladesh has stirred a tempest of controversy by attempting to dissociate itself from perceived Israeli affiliations without naming it amidst the unfolding Gaza genocide.
In a desperate attempt to disassociate itself from Israel, the new advertisement aired in Bangladesh during the India-Pakistan cricket match on June 9 and has subsequently gone viral on social media platforms. The 60-second commercial is facing harsh criticism for its seemingly tone-deaf response to the burgeoning boycott movement in Bangladesh.
The taste of apartheid
Amidst a bustling market on a sweltering day, a commercial unfolds with a dialogue between Sohail, a young man, and Bablu, the seasoned shopkeeper. Sohail initially hesitates to purchase a Coca-Cola, hinting at its perceived ties to “Israel”.
Bablu intervenes, seeking to correct this misconception by highlighting Coca-Cola’s global reach spanning 190 countries, including Turkey, Spain and Palestine. The ad emphasises Coca-Cola’s 138-year history as a worldwide brand, aiming to reassure consumers that it transcends national affiliations and political agendas.
The ad, however, backfired, with social media users calling it insensitive, inaccurate and deceptive, pointing out that there is no Coca-Cola factory in Palestinian territories but there is one in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.
Actor, writer and director, Saraf Ahmed Jibon, cast as the shopkeeper in the advertisement, was engaged by Coca-Cola for his acting prowess. In response to the ensuing backlash, he took to Facebook and stated, “I only highlighted the information and subjects they provided … I want to say that work is just a part of my professional life … Here I am nowhere for Israel and I am never for Israel. My heart is always with justice and humanity, and will always be.”
Since October 7, calls for boycotts against companies with ties to the Israeli military or government have surged in numerous Muslim-majority countries, including Bangladesh. This backlash has precipitated a significant 23% decline in Coca-Cola’s sales within these regions, which once commanded 42% of Bangladesh’s cola market, according to local media reports.
Also read: Six Months of War in Gaza Helped None, It’s Time Israel Pursued the Path of Reconciliation
‘Oi jayga’ (that place)
One cannot ignore the controversy surrounding Coca-Cola’s operations in occupied territories. To veer away an unsuspecting viewer, the ad boasted of their factory in Palestine, conveniently ignoring the inconvenient truth that it sits on occupied land.
The ad came under fire because the Coca-Cola factory in question is located in Atarot, an “Israeli” settlement in the occupied West Bank, which is considered illegal under international law as per a UK-based NGO citing the ‘Who Profits’ database of complicit companies.
The invocation of ‘Oi jayga’ obliterates any lame effort by the cola company to distance itself from Israel and counter allegations put forth by the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign. These claims accuse the company of funding Israeli military operations in Gaza and profiting from the occupation of Palestine.
The Coca-Cola Company, based in Atlanta in the US, had been on the Arab League’s blacklist for more than 20 years before the Cold War ended for doing business with Israel. Digging into the archives, it was reported in 1991 that the Arab League boycott office “lifted a ban on Coca Cola and slapped one on companies owned by media tycoon Robert Maxwell for commercial dealings with Israel.”
Though it was rumoured that prep towards lifting the ban was in the works for two years, as then “Egypt, Oman, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates permitted plants, and Coca-Cola sponsored a World Youth Soccer tournament in Saudi Arabia in 1989.”
In 1996, Time reported that the ban on Coca-Cola was initiated due to the appointment of Abraham Feinberg, a Manhattan banker who doubled as president of the Israel Development Corporation, which actively promoted Israel Bonds.
Movement of boycotts
Mahatma Gandhi famously led the Indian boycott – Swadeshi and non-cooperation – against the British Empire. Boycotting emerges as a ritual in times of strife and conflict. For many, it represents a form of civic dissent and indignation, a method to exert economic and financial leverage against specific organisations and corporations. Boycotts wield formidable influence in contemporary times.
Recently, The Guardian reported how a wave of defiance has swept through the Download festival as several bands withdrew in protest against Barclaycard’s sponsorship, decrying its financial ties to defence contractors supplying Israel. Download, the UK’s pinnacle of rock, metal and punk music that took place between June 14 and 16, prominently features Barclaycard among its sponsors, alongside Liquid Death, Red Bull and others.
Barclays has recently come under fire from pro-Palestinian campaigners, with members of Palestine Action orchestrating direct action against approximately 20 Barclays branches across the UK this week. These acts of dissent involved smashing windows, daubing them with red paint, and in Edinburgh, hurling rocks engraved with the names of deceased Palestinians at a branch of the bank.
Among the most renowned boycotts was the anti-apartheid movement spanning 1960 to 1990, urging South African consumers to scrutinise product origins before purchase. Analysts argue this movement, complemented by additional measures, exerted lasting pressure on the regime.
The BDS movement has swept through nations worldwide, challenging brands for their connections to Israel and their alleged role in the Palestinian genocide.
Taking a cue from the South African anti-apartheid movement, BDS was initiated in 2005 by 170 Palestinian unions, refugee networks, women’s organisations, professional associations, popular resistance committees and other civil society bodies. It stands as a non-violent means to pressure Israel to cease its illegal occupation of Palestine.
The BDS movement is witnessing a revival, especially spurred by TikTok users rallying their followers to shun major brands linked to the Israel Defence Forces in the wake of the October 7 attack.
Many Western nations led by the US, Germany, Switzerland and others have called the BDS movement anti-Semitic. However, BDS, in a firm rebuttal, dismissed the accusation, affirming its stance against “all forms of racism, including anti-Jewish racism”.
With the student encampments on the campuses of Western universities, the Disclose, Divest, Boycott movement has dug its heels. While critics dismiss Generation Z as “woke” and attribute the uproar to TikTok, the protest encampments at Western universities mark a pivotal moment.
The age-old tale of a stagnant political establishment butting heads with fiery youth resurfaces, especially in US history. Today’s movement against support for Israel is peeling back the layers of America’s Middle East contradictions. Change is on the horizon, albeit with uncertain timing. Ignoring these voices now? That’s just inviting a future of even bigger headaches.
Brandification of history
In contrast to the social justice and historical causes brands often commodify, the Israel-Palestine conflict presents a profoundly complex and delicate challenge. While “brandification” typically seeks to enhance visibility and appeal through marketing strategies, the conflict in Gaza resists reduction to simple narratives.
Consumers, meanwhile, have sent conflicting signals about whether they expect companies to take a stance on social and political matters. The recent Coke advertisement underscores the temptation to adopt overly simplistic positions to assert strength, yet such approaches can backfire when consumers perceive them as lacking authenticity.
The beverage company’s ties with Israel are intricate. Activists have highlighted the depth of these relations. For instance, it has been reported that in July 2002, amidst controversy, Coca Cola unveiled plans to erect a plant on Palestinian land seized for an industrial venture at Kiryat Gat. In exchange for substantial incentives from the Israeli government, the facility aimed to employ 700 Israelis.
Kiryat Gat, once Iraq Al Manshiya, bore witness to the expulsion of its residents in 1949, a stark violation of international law. This land would have been designated as part of Arab Palestine under the United Nations’ 1947 partition plan.
Another instance: in October 2005, Coca-Cola acquired a 51% stake in Tavor Winery, located on occupied Palestinian land near Mount Tavor, overlooking the Sea of Galilee.
Who brought Coke to Palestine?
In 1998, the National Beverage Company (NBC) obtained a license to produce Coca-Cola products in Palestine ‘proudly produced by Palestinians’. “NBC, which started as a small business franchise with 47 employees, now employs over 370 people across its three plants and four branches located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip”, a business magazine offered a plug.
Translate this to today’s reality: What use is a factory if the neighbourhood’s been bombed to bits, those alive are starving and the rest are pushing up daisies? Who’s signing up for that job?
Dreaming to have Coke open the factory in his “homeland”, it took Zahi Khouri two years to lobby Coke to open the factory. As the product rolled out of the factory in 1998, Khouri assumed the mantle of spokesman for the Palestinian business community, a role that requires deftly navigating the competing interests of his homeland, his corporate ally Coca-Cola and regional political tensions. His perspectives have drawn scrutiny in a region fraught with conflict.
“The time spent with American companies enabled him to become a US citizen. In 1973, he was one of the management team that formed American Express’s investment bank in Beirut. He signed a management agreement that gave him an equity stake in the Oylayan Group, a Saudi Arabian company that [holds] licenses for Coca-Cola, Nabisco and General Foods, among others. Working between New York and Saudi Arabia, he spent 20 years with Oylayan, retiring as president of its holding company in 1994,” reported the BBC.
“That Coke is successful in this part of the world is phenomenal,” the BBC quoted Sally Osberg, CEO of the California-based Skoll Foundation that has supported Khouri’s work, as saying.
“Before Zahi, my perception of this part of the world was, in a word …hopeless,” said Osberg in 2016. “Now I see such potential for self-determination there.”
Sally Osberg’s irony? I caught it faster than a fly on a sticky summer day!
Narendra Pachkhédé is a critic and writer who splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva.
