It is a strange moment when a nonviolent act of conscience—refusing to buy a burger, skipping a cup of coffee—draws more concern from public officials than the devastation that inspired it. Indonesia’s Minister of Religious Affairs, Nasaruddin Umar, recently argued that boycotts of companies linked to Israel are “not a solution,” pointing instead to layoffs and economic disruption at home. His remarks reveal a troubling misreading of both history and moral responsibility.

Boycotts are not a new or reckless invention of modern activism. They are among the oldest tools available to ordinary people seeking to exert pressure when governments fail to act. From the anti-war protests in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s to the global campaign against apartheid South Africa, economic non-cooperation has often been the most accessible—and most effective—form of resistance available to civilians. To dismiss boycotts today is to ignore a long tradition in which small, collective acts helped reshape entrenched systems of injustice.

What is happening in Gaza is not an abstract geopolitical dispute. It is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in real time, one that has galvanized global outrage. In such moments, people reach for whatever tools they have.

What is happening in Gaza is not an abstract geopolitical dispute. It is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in real time, one that has galvanized global outrage. In such moments, people reach for whatever tools they have.

For many, that means participating in the Boycott, Divestment........

© Middle East Monitor