It also benefits movements through the radical flank effect. (e.g. when white people saw the Black Panther Party carrying guns to protect their community, MLK Jr's fairly peaceful sit-ins seemed not that bad in comparison, and when having to make a choice on whether or not to give black people rights, it was easier to justify doing so if the perceived alternative was "black people in the streets with guns")

In this case, the options then become "buy products that always have random sticky notes and are telling me I'm a bad person" vs "grab the product that doesn't have the sticky notes".

If it becomes increasingly annoying to buy products which support Israel because there's constantly little sticky notes/stickers, people pushing things further back on shelves or flipping products around, etc, then it becomes a lot easier to justify just... not bothering buying the products that are being boycotted. (and it also saves people the hassle of looking up which products are being boycotted, which just makes the lives of anti-Zionists easier)

I would say annoying people is the goal of protest. You make people unconfortable until something changes.

I don't think you should care

Sometimes if protests are annoying, it drives away people who could have been swayed to your side.

Especially when reactance is a strong and relatively common social phenomenon.

There are ways to be compelling other than annoyance.

Good point, though I'm not sure if companies here in Finland act so aggressively, especially Lidl which from my understanding is a (bit more)decent company in terms of employee conditions and they do have some of the best/broadest selection of vegan and vegetarian options, so I don't think them selling sodastreams is as much of malicious as rather ignorant

That is good advice, and things any activist need to be aware. However, protests that comply with all the rules and regulations are likely completely useless.

Calling post-it notes vandalism is pretty ridiculous.