Page Contents
Ben & Jerry’s resolves business dispute in Israel
Ben & Jerry’s, the iconic ice cream company, recently made headlines with its decision to unfreeze its business dispute in Israel. The move comes after a period of controversy and public outcry over the company’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a bold statement, Ben & Jerry’s founders expressed their commitment to their principles and the importance of ending sales in the occupied territories.
The founders’ Op-Ed and the company’s decision
In an op-ed published in The New York Times in July 2021, the founders of Ben & Jerry’s, self-proclaimed “Men of Ice Cream, Men of Principle,” defended their independent board’s decision to end operations in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. This decision was made in accordance with the United Nations, which considers the occupation illegal. The founders considered the move one of the most significant in the company’s 43-year history, standing up for what they believe in despite potential backlash.
Impact on Israeli fans and parent company intervention
Ben & Jerry’s initial decision to halt sales in the occupied territories was met with disappointment and frustration by many Israeli fans of the popular ice cream brand. However, their concerns were partially addressed when parent company Unilever stepped in and decided to resume operations in the West Bank. The move was intended to ease the dissatisfaction of Israeli consumers who valued the availability of Ben & Jerry’s products.
Conflict within Ben & Jerry’s
While the parent company’s intervention may have pleased some Israeli customers, it did not reflect the views of Ben & Jerry’s founders and its independent board of directors. Overriding their stance, Unilever announced the sale of Ben & Jerry’s Israeli operations to Avi Zinger, owner of American Quality Products (AQP). As part of the deal, Ben & Jerry’s would no longer receive royalties from the sale of its products in Israel, further underscoring the rift between the company’s leadership and its parent company.
Ben & Jerry’s Stance and Ongoing Activism
In response to the sale and the parent company’s decision, Ben & Jerry’s took to Twitter to express its disapproval. The company said it did not feel the sale was in line with its values and reiterated its commitment to no longer profit from Ben & Jerry’s in Israel. Despite the change in ownership, the ice cream brand continues to support the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which encourages customers to refrain from supporting businesses operating in the West Bank.
Public response and solidarity
Ben & Jerry’s decision last year sparked a variety of responses from its customers. Some individuals in the United States boycotted the brand in response, while several conservative states decided to divest from Unilever in a show of solidarity with Israel. The controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry’s highlights the complex intersection of business, politics, and activism, and sparks discussion and debate about the role of corporations in global conflicts.
Conclusion
The recent resolution of the business dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and Israel marks a significant development in the ongoing saga surrounding the company’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the sale of Ben & Jerry’s Israeli operations to a new operator has allowed for the resumption of sales in the West Bank, the rift between the brand’s founders and its parent company remains. Ben & Jerry’s continues to stand by its principles and actively support the BDS campaign, leaving the future of its involvement in the region uncertain. As the ice cream brand navigates this complex landscape, the implications of its decisions reverberate across the fields of business, politics, and social activism.
FAQS
The business dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and Israel stemmed from the company’s decision to stop selling in the occupied territories, which Israel has occupied since 1967. This move was made in accordance with the United Nations, which considers the occupation illegal.
Why did Ben & Jerry’s founders support ending sales in the occupied territories?
Ben & Jerry’s founders supported ending sales in the Occupied Territories because they believed it was a critical decision consistent with their principles. They considered it one of the most important decisions in the company’s history and wanted to take a stand against the Israeli occupation.
How did Unilever get involved in the dispute?
Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, intervened in the dispute by deciding to resume operations in the West Bank. This move was intended to address the concerns of Israeli consumers who were disappointed by the brand’s initial decision to halt sales.
How did Ben & Jerry’s respond to the sale of its Israeli operations?
Ben & Jerry’s expressed its disapproval of the sale of its Israeli operations on Twitter, stating that the decision was inconsistent with its values. The company reiterated its commitment to no longer profit from Ben & Jerry’s in Israel.
What is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign mentioned in the article?
The Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) campaign is a global movement that encourages individuals and companies to boycott, divest, and sanction companies and organizations that support or profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Ben & Jerry’s has joined this campaign and remains committed to its principles.
How has the public responded to Ben & Jerry’s decision?
Public reaction to Ben & Jerry’s decision has been mixed. While some individuals in the United States boycotted the brand in response, several conservative states chose to divest from Unilever in a show of solidarity with Israel. The controversy sparked discussion and debate about the role of corporations in global conflicts.