Starbucks has become a worldwide cause célèbre for protestors who object to its globalised ubiquity. But in Lebanon Starbucks has been the focus of protests for other reasons entirely. The coffee chain has, especially since the conflict in Gaza, been singled out by anti-Israeli activists for protests which have seen gruesome posters waved, Stars of David taped to the windows and sometimes the café itself shut for the day.  The Starbucks in Beirut’s Hamra district, near several universities, has been targeted often, most recently last week.

So, do the protestors have a point? Of all the international companies in Lebanon, Starbucks has come in for the most flak recently. Do the protestors have a legitimate grievance with a company that gives money to a country with which Lebanon is at war? Or are they picking on an easy target, already unpopular with left-leaning, anti-globalisation types? Answering this question reveals Zionist links to the company’s founder, a grey area between the the company and its CEO and many unverified rumors.

What exactly is the protestors’ problem with Starbucks? “It is the funds that they send to the Zionist state,” says Bahaa Al Kayyali, a 21 year-old political science student at AUB involved with the grassroots Lebanese Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel. “And the support of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),” he goes on, adding that, “most of the people who protest outside Starbucks believe it gives money to the Israeli state, and IDF, for sure.”

However, Starbucks denies this, outright. Its ‘Facts about Starbucks in the Middle East’ section on its website denies providing financial support to the Israeli government and the IDF, although support to Israeli charities is not specifically denied.

But there are protestors who, even if they do not accuse the company of funding Israel directly, have a grievance with the company through its director. “Our boycott is in general, not only to Starbucks, in general to the companies we find out are in a direct or indirect way supporting the state of Israel…Starbucks itself because the director and co-owner Howard Schultz [is] a known Zionist and open speaker in support of the state of Israel” says Arabi Al-Andari, a member of the Union of Lebanese Democratic Youth, who have protested Starbucks recently, since 1997.

Howard Schultz, the Jewish 55-year-old founder and CEO of Starbucks, has been called a Zionist by protest groups and boycott campaigns in Lebanon and globally. As with many ideological battles, the internet has been a breeding ground for debate and accusations on both sides. It can be difficult to tell justifiable grievance from fabrication.

A fake letter that first appeared on anti-Israeli website Ziopedia in July 2006, in which Schultz thanks Starbucks customers without whom he “wouldn’t be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars each year to protect Israeli citizens from terrorist attacks and keep reminding every Jew in America, to defend Israel at any cost,” is often quoted. In the first month the letter went up, it was read by over 100,000 people on the Ziopedia site alone. 

But the letter was widely misunderstood; it had been written as a satirical piece by Ziopedia editor Andrew Winkler. “However all the statements I made in that letter about donations, sponsorships, political views etc. – are based on factual Howard Schultz actions and quotes as a half hour of ‘Googling’ will easily confirm to anyone interested,” said a note added later by Winkler.

But although Googling turns up many reasons to boycott the company, few are verifiable.  The Innovative Minds website’s ‘Boycott Israel Campaign’ asserts that Starbucks sponsored the American Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem’s annual ‘Bowl 4 Israel’ fundraiser in 2002 and 2003. But the Committee maintains no ‘Bowl 4 Israel’ events were held in those years. 

There is controversy, too, over whether the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah awarded Schultz the “Israeli 50th Anniversary  ‘Friend of Zion’ Tribute Award” in 1998, and although Schultz has written an article on the official Aish Ha-Torah website, no mention is made of the award. Some claim that the award used to be posted on the Starbucks website under the ‘Awards and Accolades’ section, but was subsequently removed when a wave of boycotts began around the year 2000.

Statements have disappeared from the website before, according to Bahaa Al Kayyali, who says that Schultz made donations to the charity the Jewish National Fund, and that this used to be posted on the website. “I’ve seen it myself, a lot of people did, even the professors that started the boycott campaign. Like two years ago when Starbucks got affected a lot in the Middle East, they took off all the posts and articles about sending donations to Israel,” said Al Kayyali.

Starbucks’ stance is that Schultz’s actions are not representative of corporate policy. In 2002 Schultz gave a speech at the Temple de Hirsch Sinai in Seattle that ignited criticism. Controversy was created by forceful statements, like, “the rise of anti-Semitism is at an all-time high since the 1930s. If you leave the synagogue tonight and go back to your home and ignore this then shame on us. Take a stand, please!”

Starbucks’ official response was to distance the corporation, releasing a statement that he was “speaking as a private citizen and did not interview with the media regarding this subject.”

Schultz later issued another statement claiming the speech was misinterpreted and he is not anti-Palestinian.  But the distinction between Schultz personally and the Starbucks corporation is not accepted by Lebanon’s protestors. “He lives off the profits of Starbucks this guy, so if it’s his personal money, this is still a case against Starbucks, because all the money he gains is from the profit of Starbucks. All his personal money is from Starbucks after all,” said Al Kayyali. Starbucks is in fact locally franchised, and only a percentage of the profits from the Middle Eastern branches go to the main corporation. But protestors say that their boycott is not harming the Lebanese economy, as the company does not buy any Lebanese raw materials for the cafes or the coffees.

According to Dr. Samah Idriss, academic and key figure in the boycott campaign, Starbucks was put on the campaign’s blacklist after announcing plans in 2002 to spend $15 million opening 80 outlets in Israel.  But in 2003 all the opened locales in Israel were shut. Starbucks cites “operational challenges” while Idriss believes it was the boycotts and protests in the Middle East. Regardless of the cause, the shut down has meant a revision for the boycott.  “Starbucks is no longer in Tel Aviv, they do not invest in Israel, they do not have employees there so…we are now updating the information,” says Idriss.

But this revision is not likely to remove Starbucks from the Lebanese activist limelight. The perception that Schultz is a Zionist means that the cafes’ familiar green logo is the most visible purportedly Israeli-affiliated symbol on the streets of Beirut. Is boycotting it the most effective way of targeting Zionism? Well, it gets the protestors’ picture in the media, and maybe that’s the idea. Is Starbucks the fairest target? Maybe not, but as long as anger seeks easy answers, the finer points of responsibility will pass protestors frustrated with Israel.