‘Ice cream!? Again!?”
When the Ben & Jerry’s fiasco first became public, information seemed contradictory and confusing. Exactly what was being boycotted and where was unclear. In fact, whether there was an actual boycott proposed, and by whom, were all critical issues that seemed very fuzzy.
Full bias disclosure: I could do without Ben & Jerry’s; my tastes run to other brands. Additionally, I have significant issues with the settlement enterprise. Without parsing either topic in depth, however, I see the West Bank ice-cream issue as the crudest antisemitism masquerading as some high-minded, principled crusade in the name of justice, truth and all that is noble.
The reality is much uglier.
And I say this only because, for all its social-justice grandstanding, B&J has focused all its energy on Israel. Only Israel. A question sent more than a week ago to the Unilever (Ben & Jerry’s parent company) media office asking specifically whether any other such boycotts have been considered by the company, or implemented, anywhere – in the whole wide world – has gone unanswered.
The silence tells us everything we need to know.
On July 19, seemingly out of nowhere, Unilever issued an odd statement acknowledging the sensitivity and complexity of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Unilever added that it deferred to Ben and Jerry’s much vaunted social agenda and affirmed it would continue to offer its products in Israel.
Anuradha Mittal, chair of the Ben & Jerry’s board of directors, wasted no time in grabbing her bullhorn and lashing out at Unilever, saying the B&J board had not been consulted on this statement and did not support it.
In an interview with NBC News immediately following the release of the Unilever statement, Mittal accused her corporate boss of having been deceitful, adding, “I can’t stop thinking that this is what happens when you have a board with all women and people of color who have been pushing to do the right thing.”
(Note to readers: A quick fact check confirms that the B&J board is more diverse than Mittal suggests, including at least two seeming Caucasians. There are six board members in total.)
Following Mittal’s outburst, B&J issued a responding statement confirming its view that “it is inconsistent with [their] values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territory].”
Mittal, it seems, has two main beefs. First, when global giant Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, a key term of the acquisition was that the new owner permit the ice-cream purveyors to be governed by an independent board with particular emphasis on respecting their founding and long-standing commitment to various political and social-justice causes. Apparently, Unilever issued the statement without consulting the B&J board. OK, fair point.
Her second objection was more substantive: She disagreed that the company will continue to offer its products anywhere in Israel and indicated this would be dealt with through “different arrangements.” Stay tuned for details. Again, a case study in how NOT to manage public relations.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett jumped all over this, slamming the Unilever decision and telling the company’s CEO, Alan Jope, that Israel’s response would be anything but passive.
Ambassador to the US Gilad Erdan immediately sent letters to each of the 35 states that has introduced some form of legislation enabling economic retaliation if a business enterprise engages in or supports BDS against Israel.
This is where the story really picks up, just when the media and public seemed to tire of it.
IT WAS clear as day that of the 35 states with such legislation, more than a few would bite. And they have.
Several have announced they will be reviewing the nature of the boycott along with the investment standards set out in their state legislation.
A letter sent to Mr. Jope on July 23 from Liz Gordon, executive director of corporate governance in the Office of the State Comptroller of New York lay down the gauntlet.
Ms. Gordon oversees conduct of administrators of the New York State Common Retirement Fund investment portfolio. The third-largest fund of its kind in the US, it is invested in assets on behalf of more than one million members, and in 2016 adopted a policy to address the BDS issue. BDS activities may include actions that are intended to penalize, inflict harm on or limit commercial relations with the State of Israel. Such conduct, in turn, may constitute a “threat to Israel, its economy and, as a result, the Fund’s investments.”
And so, Gordon proceeded to notify Jope that Unilever will be added to the list of companies that may be participating in BDS activities. She then gets into the procedural stuff, basically asking Jope to clarify Unilever’s position on BDS, failing which her office will conduct its own assessment. Should Unilever be found by her office to be engaging in BDS, then the potential censure is that the fund may well disinvest its Unilever assets.
This is just one state. Texas and Florida have piped up as well, and more are certain to follow, if they have not already.
This is big. Like, really big.
In an earnings call with investors on Thursday, July 22, Jope emphasized that Unilever remains fully committed to its business in Israel. Fine.
What he seemed to have dodged was whether Unilever is committed to maintaining Ben & Jerry’s presence and products in Israel and on what terms. Ice cream is a teeny portion of the general Unilever business done in this country. One can only assume that the lack of precision in Jope’s comment reflects overdue advice from his legal and communications advisers. Unliever is under global scrutiny now to manage this flop, assuage the feisty B&J board, and carry on doing what its shareholders expect of it: Profit.
Ben & Jerry’s, however, is likely just the tip of the iceberg, which may go a ways to explaining the swift and harsh reactions from Bennett and Lapid.
It’s about much more than ice cream.
Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s parent company, is publicly traded, which is the only reason this hornet’s nest has become public. There are many private companies in Israel that are being shunned and, in effect, boycotted commercially, regardless of whether they are engaged in the OPT.
Speaking recently with acquaintances who own and operate global businesses based in Israel, I heard story after story of canceled investments and business dealings. Every single one occurred after the May conflict with Hamas. And every single one cited Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as the reason for the business decision.
For every B&J, there are many more boycotts that are being imposed, quietly, one suspects. Based on my own non-scientific, anecdotal inquiries, we should all be focused on the bigger picture.
Let B&J sort out their teetering house. We have to take an honest look at the lay of the broader landscape and face the future, which is now.Ben & Jerry’s is just the tip of the iceberg
The writer was the Canadian ambassador to Israel from 2014 to 2016. A former lawyer, she consults for international clients on a range of issues and resides in Tel Aviv.