- 11
- Dec.
- 2023
Hamas-Israel War: Zara Accused of Distasteful Manipulation
modified on 07 Oct. 2024 à 16:46 Read : 3 minute(s) A A A
Zara, the renowned Spanish fashion retailer, finds itself embroiled in controversy following a recent advertising campaign. This campaign, featuring statues with missing limbs amidst debris, has drawn parallels to the destruction seen in Gaza.
The fashion brand Zara is thrust into the spotlight not for its fashion creations, but for its controversial advertising campaigns, suspected of conveying subliminal messages and disguised political stances.
Amancio Ortega, the founder of Zara and the world’s 14th richest person with an estimated net worth of $75 billion, faces a barrage of criticism. The contentious campaign, titled “The Jacket,” showcases model Kristen McMenamy posing among mannequins covered in white fabric and plastic, a design choice that Zara defends as a stylistic decision to highlight the versatility of its clothing.
However, this campaign has elicited predominantly negative public reactions. The images, interpreted by some as macabre representations of bodies wrapped in white shrouds resembling Islamic funerary rites, have been deemed disturbing. Additionally, the inclusion of elements such as rocks, debris and a cardboard cutout resembling an inverted map of Palestine has fueled the controversy.
Palestinian artist Hazem Harb expressed his outrage on Instagram, accusing the brand of using death and destruction imagery for commercial purposes, a move he characterizes as complicity.
This is not the first time that Zara has been at the center of controversy. In 2021, the brand faced negative reactions after Vanessa Perilman, its chief designer, posted comments deemed anti-Palestinian on social media.
[gallery size="full" ids="206913,206914,206916,206917,206919,206920"]
When Multinationals Ride the Wave of War
A previous Zara campaign was criticized for appearing pro-Palestinian. A photo showing a woman dressed in a green scarf and black coat against a red background caused an uproar. This color combination was indeed interpreted by many internet users as a subtle reference to the Palestinian flag, sparking a flood of pro-Israeli comments. Faced with the controversy, Zara denied any political intent, but doubts persist about the true nature of these choices.
Simultaneously, other international brands such as McDonald’s, KFC, Starbucks and H&M are facing boycotts for their presumed ties to Israel, illustrating the significant economic and symbolic impact of multinationals in delicate geopolitical contexts.
These incidents raise crucial questions about the role of large corporations in international conflicts. While private companies are primarily focused on commerce, their advertising campaigns and communication choices can carry political messages, intentional or not. The subtlety of these messages in Zara’s case, and the recurrence of sensitive themes related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, suggest deliberate manipulation rather than mere coincidence.
Indeed, the use of imagery evoking shrouds in a context as sensitive as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be ignored or dismissed as a misunderstanding. These aesthetic choices, far from being insignificant, appear to reveal an ambiguous communication strategy, flirting with the boundaries of moral and ethical acceptability.
In response to the controversy, Zara reacted by removing the contentious visuals. However, this episode highlights the power and influence of multinationals in the global political arena, and the responsibility they bear in terms of communication.
It has now become imperative to question and analyze the messages conveyed by large corporations, especially when they touch on subjects as sensitive and politically charged as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Consumers are called to heightened vigilance, with commercial choices gradually transforming into political statements, often wrapped in the veil of creativity and art.
Read more
Comments