McDonald's will buy back all of its Israeli restaurants after sales suffered from a boycott of the brand over its perceived support for Israel.
The fast food giant was criticised after its Israeli franchise gave away thousands of free meals to Israeli soldiers.
McDonald's said it had reached a deal with franchisee Alonyal to return 225 outlets.
It said in January the Israel-Hamas war had "meaningfully impacted" business.
Widespread protests affected sales in the Middle East, Indonesia and France.
Alonyal, which is led and owned by chief executive Omri Padan, has operated McDonald's restaurants in Israel for more than 30 years.
McDonald's uses a franchise system which means that individual operators are licensed to run outlets and employ staff.
The boycott of McDonald's was sparked after Muslim-majority countries such as Kuwait, Malaysia and Pakistan issued statements distancing themselves from the firm.
Days after the Hamas attacks on Israel last October, and the retaliation by Israel Defense Forces (IDF), McDonald's franchisee said on social media that it had "donated and continues to donate tens of thousands of meals to IDF units, the police, hospitals, residents around the strip and all rescue forces".
Vocal protests were staged worldwide as the grassroots boycott spread beyond the Middle East. As well as restaurants in the region, McDonald's businesses in France, Indonesia and Malaysia have also been affected.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Should companies like McDonald's stay neutral in political and military conflicts, or is it important for them to take a stand?
@9LCRYML2yrs2Y
I think that companies like McDonald's should stay neutral in political and military conflicts because their role doesn't have anything to do with those conflicts. The companies shouldn't have a stance, and they shouldn't be forced to make a stance. A company such as McDonald's has a role making food and drinks, not to make controversial political stances in conflicts. The company itself has nothing to do with any kind of conflict.
@9LCRYGR2yrs2Y
I think that companies like McDonald's should stay neutral in political and military conflicts because their role doesn't have anything to do with those conflicts. The companies shouldn't have a stance, and they shouldn't be forced to make a stance. A company such as McDonald's has a role making food and drinks, not to make controversial political stances in conflicts. The company itself has nothing to do with any kind of conflict.
@9LCRTCS2yrs2Y
Companies for the most part should stay nutral.
@9LCRH4B2yrs2Y
For many topics, profits come before ethics for corporate executives, the decision makers for companies. Standing against conquest, suppression, and genocide should come before profit if these executives are not moral savages.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
If a brand you use daily was boycotted for its political actions or affiliations, would you join the boycott or keep using the brand? Why?
@9LCV8YG2yrs2Y
When Mcdonald's and Starbucks were boycotted, I joined the boycott and continued to because I do not support companies who support Genocide.
@9LCV76NIndependent2yrs2Y
Boycotts are crazy when it comes to individuals. When it comes to brands, they actually make some sense. The brand all together decided that their product or service supports this cause. Purchasing from that product or brand may be morally conflicting.
Depends on its affects on other things
@9LCSWV3Republican2yrs2Y
Join the boycott (assuming I agree with the reasoning)
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Do you believe that the actions of a franchise in one country reflect the values of the entire company? Why or why not?
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
