Back to Resources Guide

Objection Handling & FAQ

The things companies, trustees and boards say when asked to end their ties to Israel's military and occupation, and short answers that will stand up to their lawyers.

  • 11 objections
  • A one-line answer for each
  • UK, EU and US

Stay on conduct. Talk about what the company does and what the findings say, not about the politics.

End on a question. A question they must answer is worth more than a point you have won.

Name the people. Every one of these meetings is about Palestinians. Say so before you leave.

They say

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

You say

Carrying on as normal is a choice, and the standards your company has signed up to expect you to make it with heightened due diligence.

  • Name the standard. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which most large companies cite in their own human rights policies, expect heightened due diligence where a company works in or supplies a conflict. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises say the same, and anyone can bring a complaint about a company to a government's OECD National Contact Point.
  • Point to what they did elsewhere. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, hundreds of companies withdrew within weeks, many citing their human rights commitments. Ask why the standard is different here.
  • Make it about risk. "We are not asking you to take a political position. We are asking how you are managing a documented legal and reputational risk."

They say

"We follow all applicable laws in every country where we operate."

You say

Local legality is the floor. International crimes have been prosecuted against companies and their executives.

  • Corporate prosecutions happen. French courts allowed a charge of complicity in crimes against humanity against the cement company Lafarge over its Syrian operations. Swedish prosecutors put two Lundin Oil executives on trial in 2023 for complicity in war crimes in Sudan.
  • An Israeli permit is not a defence. The International Court of Justice held in July 2024 that settlements and their associated economic activity are contrary to international law, and that every state must prevent trade and investment that help maintain the occupation. An Israeli permit changes neither.
UK

Directors must have regard to the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct (Companies Act 2006, section 172).

EU

France's duty of vigilance law lets affected people take a company to court; Germany's supply chain law is enforced by a regulator; the EU's own due diligence directive, adopted in 2024, was narrowed in 2026, and most of it will not apply until 2029.

US

Delaware law gives boards a duty to oversee the company's legal compliance risk.

They say

"Whether this is genocide is disputed and no court has decided. It is too complex for us to act."

You say

A UN Commission of Inquiry has found that Israel is committing genocide. And due diligence never waits for a final verdict.

  • The findings. On 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice found a real and imminent risk to the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, and ordered Israel to prevent them. The UN Commission of Inquiry found in September 2025 that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister and former defence minister, including for the war crime of starvation. See the authoritative determinations.
  • Genocide is not the only question. Aiding war crimes or crimes against humanity carries its own liability. A company does not need a genocide ruling to have a problem.
  • Complexity raises the bar. "If it is complex, that is a reason for more due diligence, not less. Have you carried out a human rights impact assessment since January 2024?"

They say

"Singling out the world's only Jewish state is discriminatory, and potentially antisemitic."

You say

This is about what a company does, not about anyone's identity.

  • Conduct, not identity. The ask concerns specific contracts with a military and with settlements that international courts and UN bodies have examined. It applies to any company, wherever it is based.
  • The same standard. These are the human rights commitments many companies cited when they left Russia. Exempting one state from them would be the double standard.
  • Jewish voices. Many Jewish organisations and individuals campaign for exactly these exits. Opposing a state's conduct is not hostility to a people.

They say

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

You say

Contracts end. Ask when this one renews, and what its exit terms are.

  • Ask for the dates. Most contracts have a term, a renewal date and termination clauses. Not renewing usually needs no contractual justification.
  • Ask about the clauses. Supplier codes, sanctions and compliance clauses and human rights clauses often allow termination for breach. Ask whether Legal has reviewed them.
  • Ask for the advice. A contract that requires a company to assist serious violations of international law may be open to challenge. "What has your legal team advised?"

They say

"Our exposure is tiny. It is 0.1% of our revenue."

You say

Then it is cheap to end, and the risk outweighs the revenue.

  • Turn the number round. "If the revenue is negligible, why carry the legal and reputational risk? Exiting a small, high-risk market is ordinary business judgement."

They say

"Anti-boycott laws in the US and elsewhere prevent us from doing this."

You say

None of these laws requires a company to keep a particular contract. Ask which law it relies on, and take advice.

  • US federal rules stop companies complying with a foreign state's request to boycott Israel. They do not require any company to keep a particular contract.
  • US state laws penalise companies that boycott Israel when they bid for state contracts or hold state investment, and some states have applied them to decisions made on human rights grounds. Ask which law the company says applies, and to what.
  • Germany's 2019 Bundestag resolution on boycotts is a resolution, not a law.
  • Make it specific. "We are not asking you to boycott a country. We are asking you to end one relationship because of what it is used for."

They say

"Our products are defensive, civilian or dual-use. We do not make weapons."

You say

What matters is who uses the product and what for.

  • End use is the test. A Honeywell guidance unit was found, Al Jazeera reported, in a missile that attacked a school in Gaza in June 2024, killing at least 40 Palestinians, 14 of them children. A component does not need to be a weapon to end up in one.
  • Ask about the controls. "What end-use checks do you carry out on sales to the Israeli military, and who reviews them?"

They say

"We only work inside Israel, not in the occupied territories."

You say

The army that runs the occupation and the assault on Gaza is the same army, whatever side of the Green Line its supplier sits on.

  • The ruling. The International Court of Justice held in July 2024 that the occupation is unlawful and that states must not render aid or assistance in maintaining it.
  • The customer. Ask who the end customer is. A contract with the Israeli military or a state body is not a contract "inside Israel" in any sense that matters to Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.

They say

"There is a ceasefire. This is no longer relevant."

You say

The ceasefire of October 2025 did not end the killing, the siege or the occupation.

  • The killing continued. More than 1,400 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire by October 2026, according to Palestinian health authorities.
  • The occupation is unchanged. The International Court of Justice's finding that the occupation is unlawful does not depend on the fighting in Gaza.

They say

"You are using Google, Microsoft and Intel products yourselves. You cannot boycott everything."

You say

We are not asking anyone to live off-grid. We are asking companies to end specific high-value contracts.

  • Leverage, not purity. This campaign targets contracts, procurement and investment, where a single decision moves real money, not individual shopping.
  • History. Using a system while organising against it is how every movement has worked.
  • Back to them. "Our phones do not change your legal exposure. What is your company going to do?"

Last updated: October 2026. This is campaign guidance, not legal advice.

Ready to put it in writing?

The letter tool drafts a letter to a company's decision-makers with the evidence from its profile.

Open the letter tool

Related Resources

Strategic Document

The Four Pillars of Material Risk

Evidence base for legal, financial, operational and reputational risks

 Core Evidence

Authoritative Determinations

What courts and UN bodies have found