Selena Gomez recently faced criticism after sharing a picture on Instagram holding a Starbucks cup, prompting backlash from fans who accused her of ignorance regarding the ongoing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
Supporters of the BDS movement have been advocating for a boycott of Starbucks due to its perceived connections with Israel despite the country’s controversial policies toward Palestinians. One fan criticized Gomez, suggesting that her apparent unawareness of Starbucks’ ties to Israel’s actions reflected poorly on her intelligence.
In response, Gomez addressed the criticism directly, admitting her lack of awareness and expressing regret for any unintended offense caused. She responded to the comment, acknowledging her ignorance and apologizing for her mistake.
Also Read:Â Selena Gomez Takes Social Media Break After Golden Globes Drama
This incident highlights the growing influence of the BDS movement, which aims to pressure companies and individuals to divest from or boycott Israeli products and institutions in response to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Following Israel’s military operation after October 7, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, Gomez faced further backlash for her perceived lack of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. After initially receiving criticism for suggesting that one post wouldn’t make a difference, her makeup brand’s Instagram page shared a post highlighting the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and detailing the brand’s donations to organizations such as the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies – Magen David Adom and Palestinian Red Crescent Society.
However, some critics pointed out that donating to Magen David Adom, Israel’s National Emergency Pre-Hospital Medical and Blood Services Organization, could be seen as supporting the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and their actions against Palestinians. This led to accusations that Gomez was attempting to “both side” the situation, with critics arguing that supporting organizations associated with both sides of the conflict was not conducive to effective activism.
