Moroccan hash is sought after worldwide as a high-quality premium product, with estimates putting the trade's yearly value in the billions.

Hashish dealers in Morocco have stopped supplying Israeli smugglers with hashish due to the ongoing war in Gaza, according to a Friday N12 report.

It is unclear exactly when the boycott began. However, the report stated that criminal organizations have already lost “tens of millions of shekels” since the boycott began.

“The hashish dealers in Morocco are not willing to sell us more hashish either directly or through intermediaries,” a drug smuggler from Israel told N12, “They decided that because of the war, they are boycotting us. Since the war, we have lost a lot of money. Tens of millions of shekels at least.”

A Moroccan dealer from al-Rif confirmed to N12 that a boycott had been put in place, saying, "Why is it possible for Israelis to make a living selling Moroccan hashish when our Palestinian brothers are suffering from hunger and living in inhumane conditions? Go buy it somewhere else. We no longer sell hashish to Israelis.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    5 months ago

    Twenty-six states have adopted laws that punish companies that choose to boycott Israel. Defenders of the law see them as necessary to protect an ally from hostile activists, while critics argue that the laws are unconstitutional infringements on free speech. So far, the only two federal courts to consider such bills have sided with the critics; Title 4 is designed to provide more legal cover for state BDS laws in future hearings.

    Looks like it’s through financial punishment for companies. So nothing directly on the consumers from what I understand

    • okamiueru@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      5 months ago

      That surprises me immensely. Out of all the hills Americans are willing to die on, the right to not be forced by the government to not have to do something, is pretty high up. Also, how on earth is this enforced? US oversight mechanisms on companies have been toothless for decades. But, going case-by-case in order to prove a company, beyond a reasonable doubt, changed some business operation, due to a unwillingness to trade with Israel… and not any other reason, is completely mindbogglingly absurd. It even contradicts a free market tenant, as share holders might want a company to not be associated with genocide, as the risk is pretty significant. Choosing a slightly less good partner, on paper, might be the correct choice.