BEIRUT — As Israel’s war in Gaza spreads anger and anxiety across the Middle East, one of America’s most famous brands has found itself in the thick of it: McDonald’s.
Politics
McDonald's Mideast franchises offer side of politics with their burgers – The Washington Post
It all started earlier this month when a McDonald’s franchise in Israel run by Alonyal Limited said it would provide free meals to Israeli soldiers as well as hospitals.
Franchises elsewhere in the Middle East were quick to distance themselves, saying they had nothing to do with the decision to serve soldiers, and some began making donations to Gaza in solidarity with the Palestinians.
Then in the wake of a horrific strike on a Gaza hospital that killed hundreds, several branches of the chain were vandalized in Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt.
With more than 40,000 stores worldwide at the end of 2021, McDonald’s is one of the globe’s most recognized brands and is closely associated with America — even though the vast majority of the restaurants are locally owned under the franchise system.
Over the years, the stores with their highly recognizable golden arches have been repeatedly targeted as symbols of the United States, especially in the Middle East.
Unlike U.S. Embassies with their concrete walls and police protection, McDonald’s and other fast-food franchises have been easy marks for politically motivated vandalism.
The emergence of McDonald’s as a flash point harks back to an era of Arab boycotts of American brands in the early 2000s, during the second Palestinian intifada and after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. During the Arab Spring protests in Cairo in 2011, the fast-food restaurants around Tahrir Square were attacked, gutted and turned into first aid stations for protesters.
The current storm over the hamburger chain has intensified as the death toll has soared in Gaza following nearly two weeks of Israeli bombardment, sparked by a deadly Hamas incursion into Israel.
A week into the crisis, franchises in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and across the Persian Gulf released statements distancing themselves from the actions of their Israeli counterparts. The McDonald’s Corporation did not respond to a request for comment on the political and charitable activities of franchisees.
“What the licensee in Israel did was an individual and private act, and not with the approval or direction of the international company or any other licensee, especially in our Arab world,” read a statement released by Al Maousherji Catering Company, which operates McDonald’s Kuwait.
Franchises in Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Turkey, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia donated money to Gaza. Others, in Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, released statements but only later, under pressure, offered money.
But those gestures did not stop calls for a boycott of the fast-food company, as well as attacks on some locations. In Egypt, boycott calls quickly circulated online as many people took to social media to express their anger.
“This famous restaurant which gives food to [Israel] which we eat everyday and has locations in all of Egypt, we all know it but I can’t name it … this restaurant as of today should not be around, this is the least we can do,” said TikTok star Ahmad Nagy, speaking with a blurred photo of the golden arches behind him in a video that has so far received 1.3 million views.
The vitriol spurred a popular Egyptian talk show host, Amr Adib, to tell his viewers on Oct. 14 to not boycott the local franchise because it is owned by the Egyptian billionaire Yaseen Mansour and provides jobs to countless Egyptians, he said.
“What is the point of closing McDonald’s … what is the point of hurting this man and hurting people’s livelihoods?” he said. Egypt’s franchisee, Manfoods, said in a statement that it provides “more than 40,000 job opportunities directly and indirectly for Egyptian citizens.”
In response to these concerns, Tafwela, a local restaurant, posted an ad on Facebook offering to hire McDonald’s defectors. “Anyone who wants to stop working at places that support those who kill our brothers, talk to us, and God willing, we will give you a good salary.”
In a viral post on TikTok, Egyptian influencer Ali Ghozlan called McDonald’s out for not showing support to Gaza. “Just release a post, one post saying I support our family Gaza.”
In response to the criticism, Manfoods on Sunday announced that it would donate 20 million Egyptian pounds ($650,000) for relief efforts in Gaza.
“McDonalds Egypt today announced that they’ll donate 20 million pounds for the cause. I’ll say this again, your voice can make a difference, and this is the result!” Nagy said in a TikTok.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the local McDonald’s franchise has had to battle rumors that it’s supporting the Palestinians, threatening legal action against anyone spreading such stories. It said on its X account that it has donated 100,0000 meals to security forces and local hospitals and is offering 50 percent discounts to members of the rescue and security forces.
Calls for boycotts of McDonald’s are not uncommon in the region. During the second intifada, McDonald’s and other American products faced boycott calls across the Arab world. At the time, Reuters reported that the franchiser of McDonald’s Saudi Arabia responded by raising money to donate to Palestinian hospitals. Egypt’s operator took out a full-page ad in the local daily Al-Ahram saying it employed 3,000 people.
In 2003, after the start of the Iraq War, a McDonald’s in Beirut was targeted in a bomb attack, wounding five.
A 2008 University of Minnesota study found that American multinational corporations such as McDonald’s adopted strategies such as making donations and emphasizing the impact on the local economy to quell boycott calls during the second intifada. It also spurred them to localize their offerings by introducing items such as the McFalafel in 2001.
Politics
Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights
CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.
The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.
The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”
“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”
Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”
He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.
Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.
About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.
Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.
Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.
Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.
Flip-flopping on Florida
On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”
But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”
Trump on vetoing a national ban
Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.
During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”
This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.
Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”
‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban
Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.
He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.
In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.
At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.
Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women
In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.
“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”
Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.
Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.
Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.
IVF and contraception
In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.
In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”
“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.
Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.
Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.
During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.
Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.
As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.
Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.
___
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Politics
Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |
Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)
Politics
Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate
REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.
Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.
Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.
During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.
Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.
Election day is Oct. 28.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
-
News20 hours ago
Defying Convention to Deepen Connections: Booking.com’s 8 Travel Predictions for 2025
-
News6 hours ago
After hurricane, with no running water, residents organize to meet a basic need
-
Sports7 hours ago
In The Rings: Curling Canada still looking for Canadian Curling Trials title sponsor
-
Politics7 hours ago
N.B. election debate: Tory leader forced to defend record on gender policy, housing
-
News7 hours ago
Alberta government shifts continuing care from Health to Seniors Ministry
-
News7 hours ago
Buhai, Green and Shin lead in South Korea after 8-under 64s in first round
-
News7 hours ago
Manitoba government halts school building plan, says other methods will be found
-
News6 hours ago
‘Significant overreach’: Ontario municipalities slam province over bike lane rules