Ben and Jerry do not go as far as others in challenging Apartheid.
NY Times, op-ed, by the pair -
Bennett Cohen and
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield founded Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings in 1978.
We are the founders of Ben & Jerry’s. We are also proud Jews. It’s part of who we are and how we’ve identified ourselves for our whole lives. As our company began to expand internationally, Israel was one of our first overseas markets. We were then, and remain today, supporters of the State of Israel.
But it’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies, just as we’ve opposed policies of the U.S. government. As such, we unequivocally support the decision of the company to end business in the occupied territories, which a majority of the international community, including the United Nations, has deemed an illegal occupation.
While we no longer have any operational control of the company we founded in 1978, we’re proud of its action and believe it is on the right side of history. In our view, ending the sales of ice cream in the occupied territories is one of the most important decisions the company has made in its 43-year history. It was especially brave of the company. Even though it undoubtedly knew that the response would be swift and powerful, Ben & Jerry’s took the step to align its business and operations with its progressive values.
That we support the company’s decision is not a contradiction nor is it anti-Semitic. In fact, we believe this act can and should be seen as advancing the concepts of justice and human rights, core tenets of Judaism.
Ben & Jerry’s is a company that advocates peace. It has long called on Congress to reduce the U.S. military budget. Ben & Jerry’s opposed the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But it wasn’t just talk. One of our very first social-mission initiatives, in 1988, was to introduce the Peace Pop. It was part of an effort to promote the idea of redirecting 1 percent of national defense budgets around the world to fund peace-promoting activities. We see the company’s recent action as part of a similar trajectory — not as anti-Israel, but as part of a long history of being pro-peace.
In its statement, the company drew a contrast between the democratic territory of Israel and the territories Israel occupies. The decision to halt sales outside Israel’s democratic borders is not a boycott of Israel. The Ben & Jerry’s statement did not endorse the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
The company’s stated decision to more fully align its operations with its values is not a rejection of Israel. It is a rejection of Israeli policy, which perpetuates an illegal occupation that is a barrier to peace and violates the basic human rights of the Palestinian people who live under the occupation. As Jewish supporters of the State of Israel, we fundamentally reject the notion that it is anti-Semitic to question the policies of the State of Israel.
The kneejerk bandying of "Antisemite" against anyone who does not kiss up gets stale quickly and sounder conduct might prove more productive - IF the goal is justice and peace. Big IF.
Axios -
The Israeli government has formed a special task force to pressure Ben & Jerry's ice cream and its parent company Unilever to reverse their decision to boycott Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israeli officials tell me.
Why it matters: The Israeli government is concerned the move by Ben & Jerry's will encourage other international companies to take similar steps to differentiate between Israel and the West Bank settlements. A classified Foreign Ministry cable, seen by Axios, makes clear the government wants to send a message.
[...]
- The Israeli government tried to press Unilever to stop Ben & Jerry's from making that decision, but Unilever said the company had the right to take such steps as part of its corporate responsibility and social justice policy.
Behind the scenes: On July 22, the Israeli Foreign Ministry sent a classified cable to all Israeli diplomatic missions in North America and Europe ordering them to start a pressure campaign against Ben & Jerry's and Unilever in order to convince them to negotiate.
- Israeli diplomats were instructed to encourage Jewish organizations, pro-Israel advocacy groups and evangelical communities to organize demonstrations in front of Ben & Jerry's and Unilever offices and put pressure on investors and distributors for both companies.
- The Foreign Ministry also asked the diplomats to push for public statements condemning the companies and to “encourage public protests in the media and directly with key executives in both companies." The diplomats were also instructed to echo those protests on social media for maximum visibility.
- The Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israeli Consulates around the U.S. were asked to push for the activation of anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) legislation in several states and to engage with governors, mayors, members of Congress and state officials like attorneys general.
What they're saying: “We need to make use of the 18 months that are left until the decision comes into force and try to change it. We want to create long-term pressure on Unilever and Ben & Jerry's by consumers, politicians, and in the press and social media in order to lead to a dialogue with the companies," the cable said.
- It added that Ben & Jerry's and Unilever “caved and cooperated with the BDS movement" which it claimed was partially "motivated by antisemitism." The cable also said the companies' decision was "hypocritical, goes against the values of corporate responsibility and smells like extreme cancel culture."
Worth noting: The statement from Ben & Jerry's didn't mention BDS, but said it was "inconsistent with our values" to sell ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory."
WTF are they up to? BDF incitement against Ben and Jerry's because they don't like BDF against themselves? That's what it amounts to. It is stupid, and it rankles.
Eliot Engel wet his pants when Ihlen Omar made her "Benjamins" comment. Eliot Engel got voted out of the House. Tone deafness and kneejerk name-calling reactionism have consequences; many being tired of that line of - stuff. The Palestinians deserve humane justice. Isreal is instead building settlements in land seized by war. The smell of ethnic cleansing attaches. In East Jerusalem and elsewhere.
Israel is being unjust. That our nation did the same to existing people in the course of expanding territory is not cause to endorse Israel doing it. It is cause for shame.
If Israel isolates Palestinian people into an archipelago of disconnected areas east of the Green line, "reservations" perhaps being a term for that, will they at least give the Palestinians exclusive casino promotion rights?
Just wondering. Offering chopped liver is offering chopped liver, however the details of chopping here and there get done.
.jpg){kind=link}
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the end of its report, Axios adds a footer -
Go deeper
White House raised NSO spyware concerns with IsraelBarak Ravid, author of from Tel AvivJul 28, 2021 - World
Is that NSO a separate issue from Ben and Jerry, or is there a common thread?
Readers, work it out in your minds. Would it be ANTISEMITISM! to be pissed off about the Pegasus technology NSO sells to governments for spying on their respective citizenries? Because the firm is Israeli? Because it has a lame disclaimer about "don't misuse" while sucking in the Benjamins?
Or is hostility to NSO/Pegasus just plain, decent common sense and respect for norms of personal privacy as a right every citizen of the world should expect and receive?
Read Griswold v. Connecticut. Wikipedia begins its presentation on Griswold -
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that "the clear effect of [the Connecticut law ...] is to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion".[1]
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The issue remains - are the two questions; Ben and Jerry as one, NSO/Pegasus marketing/profiting as the other - are they interrelated as in, "We can do as we please and if you disapprove, you per se are an ANTISEMITE!"
It simply is past time to spread that "always bellow Antisemitism" pile on the kibbutz fields so the crops will prosper. It has no place in sensible dialog about practices and biases of a foreign theocracy-government that has declared itself in its law to be a "Jewish State," while practicing Apartheid where it holds control.
[note: ending link added as an update]
FURTHER: An earlier Crabgrass post mentioning Griswold.