The co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s defended the company’s July 19 decision to remove its products from the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” as being “pro-peace” in a July 28 New York Times op-ed.
Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the co-founders, wrote, “Israel was one of our first overseas markets. We were then, and remain today, supporters of the State of Israel. But it’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies, just as we’ve opposed policies of the U.S. government. As such, we unequivocally support the decision of the company to end business in the occupied territories, which the international community, including the United Nations, has deemed an illegal occupation.”
Cohen and Greenfield no longer have any control over the company, but they argued that the company’s statement delineated between Israel proper and occupied Israeli territory and that the company didn’t express support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
“The company’s stated decision to more fully align its operations with its values is not a rejection of Israel,” they wrote. “It is a rejection of Israeli policy, which perpetuates an illegal occupation that is a barrier to peace and violates the basic human rights of the Palestinian people who live under the occupation. As Jewish supporters of the State of Israel, we fundamentally reject the notion that it is anti-Semitic to question the policies of the State of Israel.”
They concluded their op-ed by stating “that companies have a responsibility to use their power and influence to advance the wider common good.”
J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami praised Cohen and Greenfield’s op-ed in a tweet, stating: “It’s not anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policy or to not sell ice cream in illegal settlements. It’s actually a truly pro-Israel decision.”
Ben and Jerry – Men of Ice Cream, Men of Principle – beautifully state their case. It's not anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policy or to not sell ice cream in illegal settlements. It's actually a truly pro-Israel decision. https://t.co/1xcOGOVLbG
— Jeremy Ben-Ami (@JeremyBenAmi) July 28, 2021
Others were more critical of the op-ed.
“What this op-ed doesn’t address is why always progressive @benandjerrys has been ok operating in Israel since 1987,” writer Melissa Braunstein tweeted. “Israel was in the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’ then too.”
What this op-ed doesn't address is why always progressive @benandjerrys has been ok operating in Israel since 1987. Israel was in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" then too. https://t.co/fy0rqqkovJ
— Melissa Braunstein (@slowhoneybee) July 28, 2021
Michael Elgort tweeted, “They support Israel, but oppose occupation. Also they claim to unequivocally reject BDS and they somehow missed the fact that [Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board Head Anuradha Mittal] wanted to boycott entire Israel.”
Ben & Jerry themselves (the founders) finally made a statement in The New York Times (screenshots).
Take away: they support Israel, but oppose occupation. Also they claim to unequivocally reject BDS and they somehow missed the fact that @mittaloak wanted to boycott entire Israel. pic.twitter.com/ZGaEFGgPNr— Michael Elgort 🇺🇦✡️ (@just_whatever) July 28, 2021
Elgort is referencing the fact that Mittal, as well as the independent board, stated that Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s parent company, had not run the part of the statement by them that the company would remain in Israel. Mittal tweeted on July 27 that the Ben & Jerry’s decision “is not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic. The vile hate that has been thrown at me does it intimidate me. [Please] work for peace – not hatred!”
I am proud of @benandjerrys for taking a stance to end sale of its ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This action is not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic. The vile hate that has been thrown at me does it intimidate me.
Pls work for peace – not hatred!— Anuradha Mittal (@Mittaloak) July 27, 2021
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.