[ad_1]
Arizona has sold $ 93 million in Unilever bonds and plans to sell the remaining $ 50 million it invested in the global consumer products company following the decision by subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s to stop trading. selling its ice cream in the territories occupied by Israel, the latest in a series of actions by states with anti-Israel boycott laws.
Investments made by state treasurer Kimberly Yee this week announced that they were mandated by a 2019 state law that prohibits Arizona government agencies from holding investments or making more than $ 100,000 in business with any company that boycots Israel or its territories.
Arizona appears to be the first of 35 states with anti-boycott laws or regulations to fully withdraw from Unilever as a result of Ben & Jerry’s actions. Illinois warned the company in July that it has 90 days after its investment board meeting to change course or else it would sell too. Florida and other states have taken similar steps, according to IAC For Action, the political and legislative arm of the Israeli-American Council.
While Ben & Jerry’s, which is based in Vermont, is owned by London-based Unilever, it maintains its own independent board of directors, which Unilever says makes its own decision on its social mission. Ben & Jerry’s announced on July 19 that maintaining its presence in the occupied territories was “inconsistent with our values”.
Ben & Jerry’s move sparked a strong backlash from Israel, which vowed to “act aggressively” in response to the move, including urging U.S. governors to punish the company under anti-boycott laws. . Arizona and 34 other states have laws against boycotting Israel.
US groups supporting Israel are divided over whether to push Unilever back over Ben & Jerry’s move. The Israeli-American Council urged governors to act through IAC For Action.
IAC for Action director Joseph Sabag called boycotts of Israel anti-Semitic and said it was important to fight them at the state level.
“The Israeli-American community is sensitive to this, because I would say more than other parts of the American Jewish community, we experienced the national aspect of anti-Semitism in a more pronounced way,” said Sabag Friday. “This is really why we are so proactive. It is our children who are affected by this in the classrooms and who are terrified, intimidated and harassed. … It is certainly the interest of our community in this matter. ′
But the head of J Street, a Washington, DC-based pro-Israel organization that supports a two-state solution, backed Ben & Jerry’s move and said punishing the company is “gravely dangerous.”
“It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israeli policies or not to sell ice cream in illegal settlements,” President Jeremy Ben-Ami tweeted in July. “It’s actually a really pro-Israel decision.”
Anti-boycott laws are being challenged in court, as Arizona did after it was first enacted in 2016. A Flagstaff lawyer who contracted to help defend those in jail sued on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the law violated his rights to freedom of expression.
Arizona U.S. District Judge blocked enforcement while case pending, but legislature changed law to only apply to contracts worth over 100,000 $, thus ending the case as it no longer applied to the Flagstaff man. The state was ordered to pay $ 115,000 for his attorney fees.
In Arkansas, the publisher of a weekly has filed a lawsuit to block that state’s law on similar grounds. A trial judge dismissed the case, ruling that “a boycott of Israel is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals relaunched the Arkansas Times trial in February, concluding that “supporting or promoting boycotts of Israel is constitutionally protected. …. “
The decision is not the last word: in June, the judges of the 8th Circuit agreed to hear the case and overturned the decision of the panel of three judges. They are expected to hear arguments in the case later this month.
Both cases were brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Meanwhile in Arizona, Yee wrote to Unilever’s investor relations department on September 2 to tell the company that although Ben & Jerry’s is independently managed, Arizona law would require it to sell. Unilever’s assets if the decision was not overturned.
“I issued an ultimatum to Unilever PLC, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s: reverse Ben & Jerry’s stock or divest from Ben & Jerry’s to comply with or suffer the consequences of Arizona law. consequences, ”Yee, a Republican who is running for governor, said in a statement. “They chose the latter.”
Unilever said in an Aug. 2 letter to Assistant Treasurer Mark Swenson that it had never supported boycotts of Israel, commonly known as Boycott Divestment Sanctions, or BDS, but that Ben & Jerry’s operates independently. The company made no further comment.
Arizona’s investments were in bonds and commercial paper held in the state’s short-term fixed income investment fund.
Arizona’s law enacted in 2016 and revised in 2019 enjoyed broad bipartisan support and was signed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. He tweeted that Ben & Jerry’s decision “is discriminatory”.
“Arizona won’t do business with a company that boycots Israel – in 2016 and 2019 I signed invoices to make sure,” the tweet said. “Arizona is on Israel’s side.”
[ad_2]
Source link