Global companies that say "Kill the children, we've got your back" to Israel, despite not having direct connections with Israel, cause confusion among boycotters due to their headquarters being in different countries and many of them having investments, providing employment, and paying taxes in Muslim-majority countries. Moreover, the high level of habituation of these companies' products cannot be underestimated. Brand dependency is also a significant obstacle to the boycott, worthy of serious consideration. The lack of alternative products is already one of our most serious chronic issues. Despite all these penetrating problems of the boycott, through the diligent efforts of the social media front, the boycott has become a global issue as a second front. The abandonment of habits and the sincerity of compassionate people for Gaza have found resonance. Today, the participation of students from the world's most influential universities in the global resistance has opened up a third front against the advocates of genocide in the United States. This front has emerged thanks to the boycott. The fourth front will be the increase in commercial sanctions by states. Professor Şinasi Gündüz, an expert in the history of religions from the Faculty of Theology at Istanbul University, clearly explained the importance of global resistance against the global immorality of genocide in an interview with a media outlet: "Whether they are Muslim or not, it is actually a voice against the conscience of humanity. Despite the efforts of the Western media to manipulate and suppress, the common voice of people who are freely informed about the facts of events, especially through social media, is a very positive thing for humanity. So why don't we have such a thing in our country or in this geography called the general Muslim geography? We've tilled the field well. That is, we've tilled the field well, but nothing comes out of it. Why are we playing the three monkeys? If you're human, you'll say no. Especially from the perspective of academic and intellectual circles, the most important characteristic of academia and university is universal thinking. The foundation of this is freedom. Free thinking, not being under pressure, not behaving like someone's puppet, saying naked to the king when necessary, is the requirement of academic ethics. The basic features of the university are these. Today, if many academics and students from Yale to Harvard are saying no to oppression by putting their careers on the line, this is a very honorable thing. The university should really give people a dignified stance. So why don't we have such a thing? Because our universities unfortunately could not really become universities. People in social media are developing arguments as if they are making arguments, analyses, and shooting on issues made up from the air; they are having fun, but everyone is silent on this issue. Why is that? Very simple calculations are made in academia. "Will my invitations from the US be cut off if I condemn the genocide in Gaza?" "If I participate in any support action for Palestine, will this be brought up as a bill against me in my career in the future?" People who think such things cannot be academics, scientists, or intellectuals. Whoever you are, you will say the oppressor is an oppressor to the oppressor, and you will stand by the oppressed. " So our professor says; you should not look at whether companies are Israeli or not to boycott. If they support genocide, if they remain silent, regardless of which country they belong to, that company should be put on the boycott list, no excuses should be made, and the luxury of brand and product dependence should be abandoned. Consent to oppression is also oppression. The language, nationality, race, and gender of the oppressor are not the same as the language, nationality, and gender of the oppressed.