The decision of ice cream giant Ben & Jerry’s to end its agreement with its Israeli licensee has caused a major meltdown among the Israeli government and its anti-Palestinian supporters.

The company acted because it wanted to stop any sales of its products in illegal settlements. Despite the decision aligning with international law and a UN Security Council resolution, the Vermont-based company has been accused of everything from antisemitism to terrorism.

The viciousness of the anti-Palestinian counterattack has been extraordinary. Isaac Herzog, Israel’s freshly installed president, kicked it off. “The anti-Israel boycott is a new form of terror, economic terrorism, terrorism that tries to harm Israeli citizens and the Israeli economy,” he said — a comment that must grate hugely with those who have lost loved ones to terrorism, or had their lives destroyed by bombings and kidnappings. Not to be outdone, Israel’s new foreign minister, Yair Lapid, called the decision a “shameful surrender to antisemitism.” Once again, he belittles the horror of antisemitism that has blighted the lives of millions.

If Israeli settlers may no longer be able to sample their Chunky Monkey or Cookie Dough, what has Israel done to Palestinian ice cream lovers? Where was the outcry when Israel bombed the Al-Jalil ice cream factory in Gaza in May? It was destroyed, and the Maatouq ice cream factory was severely damaged a week later. In 2014, Israeli bombs also took out Gaza’s biggest factory, which made ice creams as well as biscuits. Dig back in history and you will find other examples, including Operation Cast Lead in 2009 when Israel took out the Al Ameer factory. These attacks are far closer to any definition of terrorism than stopping sales of ice cream.

Israeli claims this is part of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. It is not.  Settlements are outside the sovereign state of Israel. They are an illegal enterprise.  Ben & Jerry’s has not taken any action against any product from Israel. If anything, it is a decision to divest. They took an ethical position that engaging with the ever-increasing settler economy is akin to engaging in the trade in ivory or blood diamonds, trade in the proceeds of crime. Israeli officials also claim that targeting settlements hurts Palestinian workers, though across the Palestinian political spectrum there is almost universal support for such action.

The other argument is that Israel is singled out unfairly. Yet when Russia occupied Crimea, many countries that refuse to take action against Israel sanctioned Russia. Any long-term military occupation should be opposed, and usually is.

Perhaps most galling of all are the apologists who try to argue about the impact of Israeli workers at Ben & Jerry’s.  They pretend this is the issue, ignoring the theft of Palestinian land and resources, the exploitation of Palestinian workers and all the accumulated abuses that come with a 54-year occupation.

Perhaps most galling of all are the apologists who try to argue about the impact of Israeli workers at Ben & Jerry’s. 

Chris Doyle

The Israeli settler lobby, which has for some time included the Israeli government, knows it has to hit hard and fast.  It does not want a trickle of companies pulling out of settlements to become a torrent. The message it sends is crystal clear — if you attempt to hold Israel to account for its crimes and violations of international law, expect a colossal hitback. The Israeli Ambassador to the US has written to the governors of the 35 US states that have laws outlawing BDS. The states of Florida and Texas have threatened to sanction not just Ben & Jerry’s but its parent company Unilever. The mayor of New York announced he would be boycotting Ben and Jerry’s, a strange argument given that the anti-BDS crowd consistently claim to oppose politically-motivated boycotts.

Yet the anti-BDS campaign has had many setbacks. Five states, most recently Georgia, have had anti-BDS laws struck down by the courts. It follows the decision in early July of Norway’s largest pension fund to divest from 16 companies active in Israeli settlements. Notably this included the telecoms giant Motorola. In 2014 a major Dutch pension fund withdrew its funds from the five major Israeli banks, all operating in settlements.

Can the ice cream giant survive or will it melt under the intense pressure, as Airbnb did in 2018? More to the point, will its action encourage other major companies to take similar action? Perhaps Ben & Jerry’s have taken the decision now having measured the reaction to the recent Israeli bombardment of Gaza in May. It was clear that the conversation about Israel-Palestine in the US in particular has changed drastically. Even though it is an American company it cannot expect any defense from its own government from Israeli attacks.

Moves to persuade companies to stop trade with settlements are not new. The UN has put together a database of 112 companies involved in the illegal Israeli settlements. Some companies have dabbled in banning the sale of settlement products.  For a while in 2002, the London department store Harrods refused to stock wine from the occupied Golan Heights. Airbnb decided to pull out but then reversed its decision and still advertises properties in settlements. Other tour operators such as Expedia are still active. The McDonald’s franchise in Israel announced in 2013 it would not open branches in the West Bank. More seriously, many companies still supply bulldozers used in the Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes in occupied territory.

Companies should not have to be taking action to ensure they do not do business with settlements. It should be states taking action. The UN Security Council passed resolution 2334 which stipulated that all states should “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

External states should have banned any trade with settlements years ago. The US has certainly not done so and the EU, while routinely referring to the settlements as illegal and contrary to peace, has also not taken any action to restrict trade with settlements. Its sole action is to insist the settlement products do not qualify for trade preferences. Even the Netanyahu government signed an association agreement with the EU that specifically did not apply to the settlements. Israel has also not formally annexed the West Bank except East Jerusalem so even the Israeli government does not legally state it is part of Israel.

Morally, leading international states should be emphasising how absurd it is that taking action against illegal settlement enterprises is deemed in any way wrong. Statesmen cannot on the one hand state incessantly that settlements are illegal but remain mute when companies and individuals seek to take action themselves so as not to be party to an abuse of human rights.

It is time world leaders started to catch up with the outrage felt by the global public and demonstrated that Israeli settlements are not just illegal but a taboo, for which there should be zero tolerance.

  • Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). Twitter: @Doylech