Ben and Jerry’s has sued parent company Unilever for a decision last week to sell the US company’s operations in Israel to a subsidiary, paving the way for the resumption of the sale of its ice cream in the territories occupied Palestinians.
The ice cream brand had announced in July last year that it would stop selling its products to areas within an “internationally recognized illegal occupation,” a decision that provoked contempt on the part of Israel and led to a campaign to pressure Unilever to withdraw the decision.
Israel supporters applauded Unilever’s announcement last Tuesday of selling them to an Israeli licensee.
Palestinian rights activists say the measure by Unilever, a multinational consumer goods company, is part of a larger push to punish solidarity with Palestinians, and that laws enacted to penalize economic boycotts in Israel threaten freedom of speech in the United States.
“You wouldn’t see this lively reaction after an ice cream company said they would stop sales to settlements unless Israel was worried that this could snowball quickly, that a company could reach 100,” Amer Zahr, president of the bar . New Generation for Palestine group told Al Jazeera.
The one-year campaign against the Ben & Jerry movement was based on laws passed by U.S. states to penalize boycotts of Israeli products. Palestinian activists and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), say these laws undermine freedom of expression. And Palestinian advocates see these efforts as a sign that the Israeli government is increasingly insecure about its image, under scrutiny as a growing heart of human rights groups accuses it of apartheid.
“This Unilever decision followed months of coercive measures by Israel and anti-Palestinian pressure groups,” said Olivia Katbi, a spokeswoman for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “The original decision taken by Ben & Jerry’s board to end sales at the OPT was a major symbolic victory.”
Ben & Jerry’s said in a statement on Wednesday that under the new deal by Unilever, it will no longer benefit from business in Israel.
“Even though our parent company has made that decision, we disagree,” they said. “We continue to believe that it is inconsistent with Ben & Jerry’s values for our ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Punish boycotts
Following the announcement last July, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Gilad Erdan, issued a letter urging the action of the governors of 35 U.S. states with laws or executive orders penalizing efforts to boycott Israel.
The letter calls for “resolute action” to “send an unequivocal message that this will not be tolerated.”
Israeli President Isaac Herzog also described the ice cream maker’s decision as part of a “new form of terrorism,” and Yair Lapid, then Israel’s foreign minister, described the decision as a “shameful surrender to the country.” ‘anti-Semitism’. Lapid said he would also address states with anti-boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) laws in response.
The BDS, inspired by the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, aims to apply nonviolent pressure on Israel to end its abuses against the Palestinians.
Several states controlled by Republicans and Democrats, including Florida, Arizona, New Jersey and New York, continued with threats to divest Unilever or took action in that direction.
In a statement issued Wednesday welcoming Unilever’s decision, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said the state had taken “swift action to investigate the planned boycott of sales by Unilever and Ben.” & Jerry and, more recently, gave Unilever a deadline on July 6 to prove that they were not. .
The Hochul office did not answer Al Jazeera’s questions about whether the governor supported boycotts against countries accused of human rights abuses, or whether he considered the occupied Palestinian territories to be part of Israel.
Unilever is not the first company to suffer from this pressure from Israel and its supporters.
After Airbnb announced it would cease operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, the hosting website faced a strong backlash, which pushed it to reverse course about five months later.
In January 2019, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that Airbnb had been added to a list of “companies reviewed” and banned state employees from receiving a refund for accommodation with Airbnb on related trips. with work.
Artists and cultural figures who cancel shows in Israel, listening to calls from Palestinian activists, are also at risk of possible consequences.
When Kiwi singer Lorde canceled a show in Israel, Republican lawmakers in Florida threatened to cancel their concerts in the name of fighting the BDS, and a pro-Israel group posted a full-page ad. in the Washington Post, calling her a “mustache.” ”.
While Republicans and Democrats have fought for restrictions on freedom of speech from different ideological perspectives, both have repressed efforts to promote economic boycotts against Israel.
Several federal courts have overturned anti-BDS laws in recent years as unconstitutional. But a U.S. appeals court ruled last month in favor of an Arkansas law that penalizes companies that boycott Israel.
Brian Hauss, a lawyer for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement that the ruling moved away from the “long-standing traditions” of boycotts as a means of political expression.
Lina Assi, a spokeswoman for Palestine Legal, a watchdog that fights crackdowns on Palestinian rights, said anti-BDS laws are part of “broader attempts to defame and silence significant solidarity with Palestinians.” .
For some, the spectacle of a country with one of the world’s most powerful military devoting time and energy to reversing an ice cream company’s decision became a source of humor.
In response to a tweet from the official Twitter account of the State of Israel condemning Ben & Jerry’s announcement, a Twitter user responded mockingly: “You literally have nuclear missiles. That’s so embarrassing. “
For his part, Zahr said the crisis over Ben & Jerry’s decision is a sign of Israel’s “fragility”.
“We know the truth is on our side, and even when there is a disappointing decision like this, it is drawing attention to Israel’s occupation and denial of basic rights to the Palestinians.”