Objection Handling & FAQ

Scenario A: The "Neutrality" Defence

"We are a business, not a political organisation. We remain neutral and do not take sides in foreign conflicts."

Your Response:

The "Neutrality" Fallacy: "In the face of verified war crimes and gross human rights violations, neutrality is not a legal option. Under the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines, continuing business-as-usual in a context of documented atrocities is interpreted as complicity, not neutrality."
The Business Case: "We are not asking you to take a political stance. We are asking you to manage a material risk. Does [Company Name] usually remain 'neutral' on issues of slavery, corruption, or sanctions evasion? War crimes carry a higher legal weight than any of these."

"We follow all local laws in every jurisdiction where we operate, including Israel, the US, and Europe."

Your Response:

International Supremacy: "International humanitarian law (Geneva Conventions) supersedes local domestic laws. An Israeli law permitting settlement expansion does not protect a multinational company from liability for war crimes under international law."
Global Legal Liability:
- In the UK: "Section 172 of the Companies Act requires you to consider long-term reputational risks."
- In the EU: "The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and national laws like the French Duty of Vigilance or German Supply Chain Act (LkSG) impose strict liability for failing to prevent human rights abuses in your value chain."
- In the US: "Under Delaware Law (Caremark duties), the Board has a duty of oversight to prevent the company from engaging in illegal acts. The Alien Tort Statute also poses risks for corporate complicity in violations abroad."

"The legal definition of genocide is debated and hasn't been fully proven in court yet. It's too complex for us to act."

Your Response:

The "Genocide" Distraction: "While the ICJ has ruled the risk of genocide is 'plausible,' our concerns do not rest solely on that single definition. There is an absolute consensus among the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and legal scholars that war crimes and crimes against humanity have definitely occurred."
Liability Threshold: "Corporate liability attaches to war crimes just as it does to genocide. You do not need to wait for a final genocide ruling to be liable for aiding and abetting war crimes. The current evidence is sufficient to trigger your duty to exit."
Due Diligence: "If the situation is complex, that increases—not decreases—your obligation to conduct Enhanced Due Diligence. Have you conducted a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) since January 2024? If not, you are acting blindly."

"Targeting the world's only Jewish state is discriminatory and potentially antisemitic."

Your Response:

Focus on Conduct, Not Identity: "This campaign targets conduct—specifically, violations of international law—not identity. We apply the same standards to companies complicit in violations in Russia, Myanmar, or Xinjiang."
Universal Standards: "Our demand is based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These principles apply globally. Suggesting that Israel should be exempt from international law is arguably discriminatory against the victims of these violations."
Legal Precision: "We are targeting specific business relationships that facilitate recognized crimes (settlements, apartheid, war crimes). If [Company Name] were facilitating similar crimes elsewhere, we would demand the same exit."

"We have binding contracts. We cannot just walk away without being sued."

Your Response:

Force Majeure / Material Adverse Change: "Most commercial contracts have clauses allowing exit in cases of 'Material Adverse Change,' 'Force Majeure,' or uninsurable risk. The ICJ ruling likely triggers these clauses."
Public Policy & Illegality: "In US and English law, a contract that requires a party to perform an act that aids a crime against humanity or violates peremptory norms (jus cogens) is unenforceable on grounds of Public Policy."

"Our exposure is tiny. This is 0.1% of our revenue. It's not worth the hassle."

Your Response:

Disproportionate Risk: "Exactly. If the revenue is negligible, why accept the massive reputational and legal risk? The 'toxicity' of the exposure outweighs the profit. It makes pure business sense to exit a low-margin, high-risk market."

"We cannot divest because of US Anti-BDS state laws or anti-boycott regulations which penalise us for boycotting Israel."

Your Response:

Risk-Based Exclusion vs. Boycott: "We are not asking you to 'boycott Israel' based on nationality. We are asking you to exclude specific business activities based on material human rights risk and criminal liability. Anti-BDS laws do not force companies to invest in war crimes or violate their own Human Rights policies."
Fiduciary Duty Trumps Politics: "Your fiduciary duty to shareholders to avoid material legal and reputational risk overrides political anti-boycott legislation. You are exiting a risky asset, not making a political statement."

"How can you lecture us when you're using Google/Microsoft/Intel products yourself? You can't boycott everything."

Your Response:

Strategic Leverage Over Purity: "You're right—total disengagement from the global economy is impossible. That's precisely why we focus on strategic leverage rather than impossible purity. We target the specific contracts and relationships where pressure creates the most economic disruption."
Use the Tools to Dismantle the System: "There is no contradiction in using a platform to organise against its unethical practices. Abolitionists wore cotton; civil rights activists used segregated buses. The question is not personal purity—it's whether you're applying effective pressure."
The Dual-Track Approach: "Consumer boycotts create reputational pressure. Professional engagement—targeting B2B contracts, procurement decisions, and institutional investors—creates financial pressure. We ask companies to exit high-value contracts, not individuals to live off-grid."
Redirecting the Conversation: "The question isn't whether activists have achieved perfect divestment. The question is: what is your company's legal and fiduciary exposure? Our personal consumption doesn't change your material risk profile."

Last updated: January 2026