This commentary is by Itai Klein, an attorney and founder of Klein.Law, who lives in Santa Monica, Calif., and Vermont. He grew up in Israel, the U.K. and the U.S.
Ben & Jerry’s claims that its recent decision to prohibit the sale of ice cream in an area that it describes as “illegally occupied Palestinian territory” advances its social justice mission.
Those are areas Israel gained control of from Jordan in 1949 in a war of self-defense that resulted in a cease-fire line between the two countries. These areas include Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank).
Jordan has since signed a peace treaty with Israel, while the Palestinian-Arabs and Israel negotiated and signed a temporary accord for division and administration of the area, which remains in place today. The final status is subject to further negotiations, until which time the area remains disputed and subject to competing claims.
Into this complex, multi-layered and decades-old dispute where there is tremendous suffering among all peoples steps in Ben & Jerry’s board of directors and their founders, oversimplifying a complex situation and throwing around buzzwords and the rhetoric of illegal occupation and oppressors and victims, ostensibly to advance a social justice mission.
The result of Ben & Jerry’s decision is that approximately 2.3 million people who live in this area, Arabs and Jews, will not have Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, and if the Israeli licensee closes its doors, then Arabs and Jews will lose their jobs and the people who live there, Arabs and Jews, will effectively be boycotted. Walls of hatred will rise even higher. Ben & Jerry’s action only serves to add fuel to an explosive situation.
Is this what Ben & Jerry’s really stands for? One would think that their social mission would be to bring people together — to have Arab and Jewish children share scoops. So what’s going on here? What social justice mission is the Ben & Jerry’s board of directors advancing? Boycotting Israel? Lending its support to the anti-Semitic BDS movement that seeks Israel’s destruction?
The company’s founders claim that they are “men of principle” and haven’t joined or endorsed BDS, but in reality, whether they thought this through or not, their decision is being celebrated as a victory for the BDS movement.
It sure doesn’t help to paint a picture of well-meaning social justice when Ben & Jerry’s board chairperson previously supported a boycott, investment withdrawal, and sanctions against Israel, known as the BDS. “The catastrophe continues #Nakba 70 years later. #Palestine bleeds boycott withdrawal sanctions #israel,” she wrote in 2018.
Given its focus on social justice advocacy, if Ben & Jerry’s is adopting boycotts, it might have taken action against repressive and torturous dictatorial China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. It could stand up for LGBTQ+ rights and stop sales in Singapore, where homosexuality is still punishable by up to two years in prison. And when it comes to the hundreds of territorial disputes, you would think that it would exert its economic power to create bridges and adopt initiatives to bring people together.
Instead of promoting dialogue, Ben & Jerry’s is proliferating difference. And division.
If Ben & Jerry’s, or for that matter anybody else who doesn’t live in the region, wants to step into that part of the world to advance a social justice mission and peace, this is not the way to do it. Instead, we hope B&J can return to its true “one world, one heart” mission by constructive efforts for peace, such as supporting groups with Vermont connections working to bring communities together, and by promoting initiatives that bring Palestinians and Jews together economically and socially.
We ask Ben and Jerry’s to refrain from fanning the flames of hatred and return the company to its Vermont roots of advancing peace, justice and Chunky Monkey for all.
