In recent times, a single brand in the global beauty industry came to find its dark shadow. Luxurious Dead Sea products have always been its hallmark, yet it operates in the occupied Palestinian territories, making profit from minerals extracted from that disputed territory. The appeal to boycott Ahava is more than just a call to boycott cosmetics but rather a stand against the exploitation of occupied territories and a throwback to how international law is ignored. Visiting stolenbeauty.org tells people how they can get involved in an increasingly popular movement for justice.
Ahava’s Operations in the West Bank
The business operations conducted by Ahava raise many serious questions on ethics. The company extracts minerals from the Dead Sea. This body of water partially lies in the West Bank, which is currently occupied by Israel. International law, particularly in the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, determines that an occupying power cannot use natural resources present in occupied territories without first seeking the permission of the indigenous people. However, Ahava has been working in this region without the consent of any Palestinians but taking all the profits from these precious natural resources.
The minerals extracted by Ahava are used in premium beauty products sold worldwide, marketed as natural and beneficial to the skin. While the consumer drenches herself in the production of these products, the economic and environmental loss to the local Palestinian population disappears.
The company has made millions off of land that is illegally settled by Israel. It will profit at the expense of taking wealth away from its rightful owners, who cannot access their natural resources.
International Law and the Occupation
Legal context is very clear with regard to the activities of Ahava: according to international law, it is totally prohibited to extract any resources from occupied lands. The West Bank is recognized by the United Nations and the majority of the international community as occupied Palestinian land, and such settlement activities as those of Ahava are forbidden.
The headquarters and main factory of the company is in the Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Shalem. Mitzpe Shalem, like so many other places in the West Bank, does not exist under international law. Ahava’s very presence in this settlement points towards complicity in continued occupation by benefiting from an unlawful situation while aggravating the conflict.
Why Boycott Ahava?
Ahava is not a symbolic activity, but intense pressure on businesses that gain advantage from the occupation. Consumers can voice that they wish to give no money to business and in practicing illegal activities in obtaining an exploited people’s income by boycotting Ahava’s products. Since it is gaining popularity, various movement boycotters worldwide are calling out their activists in putting an end to Ahava’s unethical practices.
Boycotting Ahava directly questions the normalization of illicit settlement activities. Moreover, boycotting directly stands in line with the overall BDS movement, which seeks to take economic leverage on Israel to follow international law and rights of Palestinians. In this regard, boycotting companies such as Ahava ‘targets the economic incentives that sustain the occupation.
Role of Ethical Consumerism
Yet, in this interconnected world today, the consumer holds more power than ever. With each and every purchase bearing a statement about values and priorities, ethical consumerism directs one’s attention to where to blame the buying habit he or she considers most; hence, not buying Ahava is a stand for justice, human rights, and international law.
Activists and concerned citizens are engaged in work that aims to bring forth awareness about the ethics and scope of Ahava’s practices and much more related to the exploitation of resources in the occupied territories. It inspires individuals to rethink their habits of beauty practices and make choices reflecting their commitment to fairness and equality.
Alternatives for Ahava
The beauty industry is vast, and plenty of alternatives exist in order not to exploit the occupied lands. It is an accepted reality that most skincare companies consider factors of sustainability, moral sourcing and fair trade in their operations. They succeed in staying at the top with unquestionable quality without selling their integrity. Brands like Lush, The Body Shop, and Tata Harper have vowed to implement ethical practices that will ensure their products are also good for the skin and the planet but especially for people who produce those products.
The great power is finding companies that place principle over profit, so the consumers can continue to enjoy luxury skin care free from funding Palestinian exploitation. Support those organizations that make choices that set the beauty industry in a more positive route.
Actionable Steps: How to Boycott Ahava
Boycott Ahava:
The simplest, most effective way to become an agent of change: Stop buying Ahava; encourage your friends and acquaintances to do the same. Let everyone know about this situation on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks. Educate your family, close ones, and associations about stolenbeauty.org.
Call those companies that carry Ahava brands and let them review their dealings with the brand. In most cases, retailers are not aware of the ethical issues associated with Ahava, and it is up to consumers to raise concerns and push for a change. Every little action takes them to the path of justice.
Conclusion
Boycotting Ahava is not merely boycotting skincare, but standing up for human rights and holding corporations responsible. A consumer can be a strong activist in denying infrastructure support for Ahava’s land grabbing of Palestinian resources. It feels almost empowering to join the boycott for justice and to identify yourself with consumers who believe in consumerism with ethics. These movements, backed by campaigns like stolenbeauty.org, remind consumers of their purchasing power and how it can indeed make a difference in our endeavors to be on the side of the just and the equal.
