Ben & Jerry’s is just the tip of the iceberg – a meltdown is coming

‘Ice cream!? Still!?”

When the Ben & Jerry’s fiasco first became public, the information seemed contradictory and confused. Exactly what was boycotted and where was unclear. In fact, whether there was an actual boycott proposed, and by whom, were all critical questions that seemed very unclear.

Full disclosure of bias: I could do without Ben & Jerry’s; my tastes run to other brands. In addition, I have significant problems with the settlement business. Without going into any of the topics in depth, however, I consider the ice cream issue in the West Bank to be the crudest anti-Semitism masquerading as a crusade of lofty principles in the name of justice, truth and justice. of all that is noble.

The reality is much uglier.

And I say this only because, for all its reputation for social justice, B&J has focused all of its energy on Israel. Only Israel. A question sent over a week ago to the media office of Unilever (parent company of Ben & Jerry’s) asking specifically if any further boycotts of this type have been considered by the company, or implemented, n anywhere – around the world – has gone unanswered.

Silence tells us all we need to know.

Ben & Jerry’s board chair Anuradha Mittal wasted no time in grabbing her megaphone and lashing out at Unilever, claiming the B&J board was not consulted on this statement and did not support it.

In an interview with NBC News immediately after the release of Unilever’s statement, Mittal accused his business manager of being deceitful, adding, “I can’t help but think that’s what’s happening. happening when you have a board with all the women and people of color who have pushed to do the right thing.

(Note to readers: A quick fact-check confirms that B&J’s board of directors is more diverse than Mittal suggests, comprising at least two apparently Caucasians. There are six board members in total.)

Following the Mittal explosion, B&J issued a statement in response confirming its view that “this is inconsistent with [their] values ​​for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream for sale in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territory]. ”

Mittal, it seems, has two main oxen. First, when global giant Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, one of the key terms of the acquisition was that the new owner allowed ice cream suppliers to be governed by an independent board of directors with particular emphasis on ’emphasis on upholding their founding and long-standing commitment to various political and social justice causes. Apparently, Unilever released the statement without consulting the B&J board of directors. OK, good point.

Her second objection was more substantial: she disagreed that the company would continue to offer its products throughout Israel and indicated that this would be addressed through “different arrangements.” Stay tuned for more details. Again, a case study of how NOT to handle public relations.

Ambassador to the United States Gilad Erdan immediately sent letters to each of the 35 states that have introduced some form of legislation allowing for economic retaliation if a business enterprise engages or supports BDS against Israel.

This is where the story really picks up, just when the media and the public seemed to tire of it.

IT WAS clear as day that of the 35 states with such legislation, more than one would bite. And they have.

A letter sent to Jope on July 23 from Liz Gordon, executive director of corporate governance at the New York State Office of the Comptroller, posed the challenge.

Ms. Gordon oversees the conduct of the directors of the New York State Pooled Retirement Fund investment portfolio. The third largest fund of its kind in the United States, it is invested in assets on behalf of more than one million members and in 2016 adopted a policy to address the problem of BDS. BDS activities may include actions aimed at penalizing, harming or limiting trade relations with the State of Israel. Such conduct, in turn, may constitute a “threat to Israel, its economy and, therefore, the Fund’s investments.”

And so, Gordon then informed Jope that Unilever would be added to the list of companies likely to be involved in BDS activities. She then goes into procedural matters, essentially asking Jope to clarify Unilever’s position on BDS, failing which her office will conduct its own assessment. If Unilever is discovered by its office to be engaging in BDS, then the potential censorship is that the fund may well divest its Unilever assets.

It is only a state. Texas and Florida have also grown, and more will certainly follow, if they haven’t already.

It’s big. Like, really big.

In a conference call with investors on Thursday, July 22, Jope stressed that Unilever remains fully engaged in its activities in Israel. Well.

What he seemed to have dodged was whether and under what terms Unilever is committed to maintaining Ben & Jerry’s presence and products in Israel. Ice cream is a very small part of Unilever’s overall business in this country. One can only assume that the lack of precision in Jope’s comment reflects overdue advice from his legal and communications advisers. Unliever is now under global watch to handle this flop, appease B&J’s spirited board of directors and continue to do what his shareholders expect of him: profit.

Ben & Jerry’s, however, is probably just the tip of the iceberg, which may partly explain the quick and harsh reactions from Bennett and Lapid.

It’s about more than ice cream.

Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, is publicly traded, which is the only reason this hornet’s nest went public. There are many private companies in Israel that are rejected and, in fact, commercially boycotted, whether or not they are involved in the OPT.

Speaking recently with acquaintances who own and operate global companies based in Israel, I heard story after story of canceled investments and trade relationships. Each occurred after the May conflict with Hamas. And everyone cited Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as the reason for the trade decision.

For each B&J, there are many more boycotts that are imposed, discreetly, as we can imagine. Based on my own unscientific and anecdotal investigations, we should all focus on the big picture.

Let B&J take care of their shaky house. We need to take an honest look at the configuration of the larger landscape and face the future, which is now. Ben & Jerry’s is just the tip of the iceberg

The writer served as Canada’s Ambassador to Israel from 2014 to 2016. A former lawyer, she consults with international clients on various issues and resides in Tel Aviv.