Ben & Jerry’s announcement on Monday that it would cease sales in the occupied West Bank could cause great trouble for the parent company as it tests American laws to exclude companies that boycott Israel from state government contracts and pension funds.
More than 30 states have passed laws designed to prevent boycotts of Israel by punishing companies that refuse to do business with the Jewish state, and some proponents of those laws now say they can also apply to companies like ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s who refuse to do business with Israeli settlements in the West Bank should apply.
“Selective boycotts are just as illegal as total boycotts,” said Marc Stern, chief legal officer of the American Jewish Committee, which advocates laws designed to curb the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.
The company’s decision upsets Jewish Twitter, pro-Israel supporters have flooded the company with demands to reset it, and several kosher markets in New York and elsewhere have decided to discontinue the product.
But Jeremy Ben Ami, president of the liberal pro-Israel group J Street, said critics were wrong to view the Ben & Jerry move as a boycott of Israel because the settlements are not an internationally recognized part of Israel, and this called for economic equality without politics Equality is an untenable position for the Jewish establishment and pro-Israel organizations.
“Either all of this belongs to Israel, in which case everyone living in the occupied territories should have equal rights, or there is a difference,” said Ben-Ami. “You can’t have your ice cream and eat it too.”
Ben & Jerry’s will stop selling our ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Read our full statement: https://t.co/2mGWYGN4GApic.twitter.com/kFeu7aXOf3– Ben & Jerrys (@benandjerrys) July 19, 2021
Stern said several states – including New York, New Jersey and Illinois – go further with laws prohibiting state agencies from entering into contracts with companies that refuse to do business with Israel or “Israel-controlled territories.” than the others, and the state pension forbids funds to be invested in them.
If these laws were applied to Ben & Jerry’s case, it could have implications way beyond whether or not workers in Albany state cafeterias can reach into a bowl of Cherry Garcia. The Vermont company is owned by Unilever, a London-based multinational with $ 50 billion in revenue from sales of products such as Hellman’s mayonnaise, Lipton tea and Dove personal care products.
Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, wrote a letter to the governors of the 35 states that have passed some form of anti-boycott laws, saying that “rapid and decisive action must be taken to address such discriminatory and discriminatory acts.” to counteract anti-Semitic acts ”.
Critics, however, resented the idea that boycotting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, widely considered illegal under international law, amounts to participating in the BDS movement, which is effectively calling for the end of Israel’s status as a Jewish state.
Ben & Jerry’s announcement that it would not renew its license with an Israeli company that manufactures and sells its products in the West Bank also stated that it would maintain its presence in Israel “through another agreement,” one line apparently was inserted by Unilever without consulting the independent board of directors of Ben & Jerry.
Over 30 US states have passed anti-BDS laws in the past few years. I plan on asking each of them to enforce these laws against Ben & Jerry’s. They will not treat the State of Israel that way without an answer. – יאיר לפיד – Yair Lapid🟠 (@yairlapid) July 19, 2021
Meera Shah, a senior attorney at Palestine Legal, said details of the laws intended to crack down on the BDS movement were less important than their goal of cracking down on activism against Israel. Palestine Legal, an American non-profit organization, pursues and combats anti-BDS laws.
“Israel and its allies use anti-boycott laws to slander the advocacy of Palestine, regardless of the actual provisions, applicability, or constitutionality of the law – or the focus of activism,” Shah wrote in an email. “Prosecuting an ice cream company for supporting Palestinian rights shows how desperate Israel and its allies are about not accepting responsibility for human rights abuses.”
The question of whether corporations – or artists, scientists and tourists – can distinguish between Israel and the territory it controls in the West Bank has been at the center of recent debates about Israel’s status as a democracy. Over the past year, human rights organizations have increasingly sought to treat Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as a unit under the control of the Israeli government, with several groups claiming apartheid because Palestinians are not citizens of the Occupied Territories.
A recent poll found that 25% of American Jews agree that “Israel is an apartheid state”.
Israel’s supporters counter that both Jews and non-Jews have equal rights in Israel and that the West Bank and Gaza should be viewed as separate regions. But for the purposes of economic activity such distinctions become blurred.
“We want to see Arabs and Jews, whether in the West Bank – Judea and Samaria – or across Israel, treated equally in the economic field,” said Michael Dickson, Israeli director of StandWithUs, who said more than 10,000 of his supporters had Ben & Jerry’s emailed Tuesday asking to reverse its decision.
While Ben & Jerry’s said it would end sales across the West Bank – not just in Jewish settlements – Stern told the American Jewish Committee that the problem is that it is a strategy of placing the blame on a single party to the conflict. While Palestinians in Ramallah may not be able to buy the ice cream, Israel would bear the financial cost of the decision.
“This is supposed to put economic pressure on Israel,” said Stern. “The Palestinians are road kill.”
In states like Arkansas, where the law has been restricted, and Arizona, where a similar measure has been upheld, there have been a handful of lawsuits related to anti-BDS laws.
The last high-profile case of an American company that decided to cease operations in the West Bank occurred in 2018 when travel rental platform Airbnb decided to remove advertisements in Israeli settlements. The company eventually lifted the ban but said it would donate proceeds from rentals in the West Bank to humanitarian organizations.