Why I'm Suing Ben & Jerry’s - After 30 years of selling ice cream in Israel, the company wants me to boycott my neighbors. I refuse.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/why-im-suing-ben-and-jerrys?s=r

In the mid-1980s, during a trip to Vermont, I discovered a fledgling ice cream company called Ben & Jerry’s. I was impressed by its quality, and set up a meeting with Ben Cohen. We bonded immediately, and I pitched him a plan to bring Ben & Jerry’s to Israel. That’s how I became the company’s first licensee.

But now, after three decades, I am being forced out of my license because I refuse to discriminate against my neighbors.

Let me explain.

Before most Americans had even heard of Ben & Jerry’s, in 1988 I opened a scoop shop in Tel Aviv. People loved it. I began manufacturing, selling and distributing Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia to Israeli and Palestinian cities. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze—everyone ate it up.

For almost 35 years—at my factory in southern Israel, at our scoop shops, and with the drivers and distributors who take our product to markets across Israel and to Palestinian cities and towns—I have had the privilege of working with an incredible range of people. Religious and secular Arabs and Israelis, Sudanese and Ethiopian refugees, immigrants struggling to learn Hebrew, and people with disabilities. Some of them have worked with me for decades. We’ve devoted our lives to Ben & Jerry’s and become an extended family, forging personal friendships with U.S. employees, management and leadership.

I share the company’s commitment to social justice and have invested tremendous energy and personal resources in programs that foster coexistence and tolerance between Palestinians and Israelis. Among them: Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow, an M.I.T.-affiliated program that teaches Palestinian and Israeli high school students entrepreneurial skills; Seeds of Peace, which brings together Israeli and Palestinian youth; the Ethiopian National Project, which helps Ethiopian immigrants assimilate to Israel; Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment, a science-education program sponsored by NASA that includes Arab and Jewish schoolchildren; Jordan River Village, a Paul Newman initiative that gives terminally ill children and their families the opportunity to have a week-long sleep-away camp experience; and Kids4Peace, the name of which speaks for itself.

For decades, Ben & Jerry’s Israel has supported these causes and more, including initiatives I developed like “Fruits of Peace”—a project to strengthen economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians by developing ice cream flavors using ingredients sourced from local Palestinian farmers. But the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which does not support coexistence, prevented us from moving forward on this program, which opened economic doors for Palestinians like no other.

Contrary to what you may have read, BDS is not about opposing a particular Israeli policy. It is about opposing Israel’s very existence, and thus it rejects any effort to “normalize” relations between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS cares more about ending Israel entirely than providing economic opportunities to Palestinians.

For years, the BDS movement has been targeting Ben & Jerry’s headquarters in Vermont, demanding the company end sales in what it calls the “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” But the primary consumers in those territories are Palestinians. In other words: BDS activists wanted Ben & Jerry’s to “help” Palestinians by depriving them of jobs (and ice cream).

Ben & Jerry’s resisted the pressure. The company’s board visited us twice in Israel and saw how Palestinians and Israelis benefited from our coexistence projects and social mission work. Everything changed last May when the pressure reached a boiling point, and Ben & Jerry’s insisted I stop providing ice cream to my customers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

I could not comply. I refuse to discriminate, and I strongly believe that boycotts are not the path to peace in the Middle East. But most significant of all: the Ben & Jerry’s directive is against the law.

Israel’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discriminating against individuals based on residence. The company’s directive also breaches Israel’s anti-boycott law; American anti-boycott laws and policies; the terms of my license agreement; and the terms of a consent decree that Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s’ parent company, signed as a condition of Israel’s approval of the Ben & Jerry’s-Unilever merger.

Requiring that I stop selling my ice cream to any customers—Palestinians or Israelis, Christians or Druze—based on where they live is illegal. That is why Ben & Jerry’s’ claim that this is not a boycott of Israel is disingenuous. Under the law, no one can lawfully do what Ben & Jerry’s is demanding I do. So unless Ben & Jerry’s finds someone willing to violate the law and go against Israeli and U.S. public policy, there will be no Ben & Jerry’s anywhere in Israel when my current license ends at the end of this year.

I proposed alternatives. I suggested having a Palestinian distributor handle distribution in the West Bank—a significant economic opportunity. But when Ben & Jerry’s learned that the distributor, naturally, wanted to increase sales in the territory, they nixed it. As they explained, we had to get the number of pints in the West Bank down to zero, because they were determined that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream not be sold, at all, in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

When I refused to bow to the boycott and to break the law, Unilever essentially fired me despite assuring me on multiple occasions that my contract would be renewed. Terminating my license solely because I refused to commit a crime is a violation of U.S. law. You cannot, as a condition of a contract, demand that a party do something illegal.

Even more upsetting is the hypocrisy. First, Unilever continues to sell thousands of its own products, including Hellman’s mayonnaise, Dove soap, and its own Magnum and Strauss ice creams, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Second, how can Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s look at themselves in the mirror? They speak about social justice yet are quick to throw hundreds of employees who have been loyal to the company for so many years under the bus. I refuse to abandon my people like that. And it is Palestinians who will be harmed the most. Today, a company is demanding that I stop providing ice cream to customers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but tomorrow it could be medicine or life-saving technology. Discrimination is wrong and treating human beings as political pawns is shameful.

I’m not the only one who recognizes what Unilever is doing is unlawful and misguided. Since the boycott was announced, Unilever has suffered innumerable blows. The state pension funds of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and Texas have withdrawn nearly $1 billion in investments; members of Congress have urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate; and Terry Smith, one of Unilever's biggest investors, has slammed the company publicly for losing its way and focusing on political issues at the expense of financial performance.

I expected, after all this, that Unilever would recognize its mistake. But instead, after months of silence, the company recently claimed it is working on a “new arrangement” to remain in Israel—presumably without me or my employees. So I had no choice but to take them to court.

Earlier this month I sued Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s to stop them from shutting down my business and harming the people we have worked so hard all these years to support: my nearly 200 employees; hundreds of suppliers, distributors and farmers who rely on Ben & Jerry’s Israel; students who participate in coexistence programs we sponsor; and millions of consumers. If Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s sincerely desire to help, rather than harm all of these people, they will reverse their decision and renew my license.
 
The Jew sues you and writes op eds instead of just refusing to comply like a man does.

If I had a factory with all the recipes, all the labels, all the ingredients to make the ice cream and I had some nosy moralizing Americans trying to get me to stop, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. What, is the Israeli government going to step in and enforce their BDS demands?

What a fag.
 
Based Ben and Jerry's, denying the Kikes their Ice Cream and Denying Palestinians Employment (Poverty breeds Extremism, which is necessary to drive the Kikes into the sea)

The J in Jerry stands for Jihad.

The Concept of a Peace involving a two state solution is gay, drive the Sodomite Kikes into the sea I say.

Heh, they reap what they have sown.
 
That's a lot of words to indicate you know absolutely nothing of how the law actually works, especially given your utterly ridiculous claim and detour about international law. With all the hair-splitting and needle-threading you're doing to avoid being called out you're acting more Jewish than the admitted Israeli Jew.


Oh, enlighten us, how does the law work?
The easiest ould be to quote the law, of course:

"1. In this bill, "a boycott against the State of Israel" is defined as: deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or body solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage."

The local law defines a boycott against the state of Israel as avoiding various ties with a person or body (corporation).
Of course no international law would ever recognize that a boycott of a state is the avoidance of doing business with a certain company and the UN, as already mentioned, favours divestment from any companies on ITS own database of companies that work in the occupied territories. For example the UN affirmed in 2016 that the settlements have no legal validity (thus they are not part of Israel and any "boycott" of them is not a boycott of Israel according to "ridiculous" detours about international law.):

And as already mentioned, in the case of the EU-vs-Iran situation, the EU had to promulgate its own laws to force at least some companies to remain in Iran. Iran had NO recourse to sue European companies based on Iranian laws in the EU for pulling out of Iran due to "political reasons". No matter how illegal it may have been and how many jobs or revenues it may have cost Iranian businesses.

And called out for what?

Am I an antisemite perhaps?
 
Last edited:
The US needs to overturn those faggy anti-BDS laws. It's pathetic.
 
Oh, enlighten us, how does the law work?
The easiest ould be to quote the law, of course:

"1. In this bill, "a boycott against the State of Israel" is defined as: deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or body solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage."

The local law defines a boycott against the state of Israel as avoiding various ties with a person or body (corporation).
Of course no international law would ever recognize that a boycott of a state is the avoidance of doing business with a certain company and the UN, as already mentioned, favours divestment from any companies on ITS own database of companies that work in the occupied territories. For example the UN affirmed in 2016 that the settlements have no legal validity (thus they are not part of Israel and any "boycott" of them is not a boycott of Israel according to "ridiculous" detours about international law.):

And as already mentioned, in the case of the EU-vs-Iran situation, the EU had to promulgate its own laws to force at least some companies to remain in Iran. Iran had NO recourse to sue European companies based on Iranian laws in the EU for pulling out of Iran due to "political reasons". No matter how illegal it may have been and how many jobs or revenues it may have cost Iranian businesses.

And called out for what?

Am I an antisemite perhaps?
Called out for being wrong. There's a reason this man is suing in US court (New Jersey, specifically) where the actions of Unilever are in direct violation of the federal anti-BDS law. International law is also largely considered non-fucking-binding in the USA (as it cannot supersede the Constitution and any laws derived from it), so I have no clue why you'd even bother to bring it up.
 
Called out for being wrong. There's a reason this man is suing in US court (New Jersey, specifically) where the actions of Unilever are in direct violation of the federal anti-BDS law. International law is also largely considered non-fucking-binding in the USA (as it cannot supersede the Constitution and any laws derived from it), so I have no clue why you'd even bother to bring it up.
Dude, OP already gave up on that inquiry when I told him to quote me the federal anti-BDS law they are against and shuffled his strategy to claiming that it goes against Israeli law and that the licensee was being forced to do something criminal which in itself would be illegal.

I'll tell you the same thing I told him. Quote the fucking federal law. The way I've quoted the Israeli one.

You won't find it and when you realize that you'll not be man enough to admit it and stop posting.
 
Dude, OP already gave up on that inquiry when I told him to quote me the federal anti-BDS law they are against and shuffled his strategy to claiming that it goes against Israeli law and that the licensee was being forced to do something criminal which in itself would be illegal.

I'll tell you the same thing I told him. Quote the fucking federal law. The way I've quoted the Israeli one.

You won't find it and when you realize that you'll not be man enough to admit it and stop posting.
and i already explained to you twice that the Israeli guy is suing for breach of contract in the US, i never claimed anything about a federal anti BDS law. You really need to read the article carefully. I'm repeating the guy word for word.
 
and i already explained to you twice that the Israeli guy is suing for breach of contract in the US, i never claimed anything about a federal anti BDS law. You really need to read the article carefully. I'm repeating the guy word for word.
You're incredible.

The person I am quoting is claiming its violating federal BDS law not normal criminal law. So you two have complete different dispositions at this time.

I've explained to you how the guy (with the BJ license) wouldn't be criminally liable in Israel as he wouldn't be boycotting a "person or body" by not selling in a specific area and that international law does not recognize occupied territories as part of Israel which means that even if your (and the Israeli guys) point was true, it wouldn't trump international law as everyone clearly have a duty to not aid in a internationally recognised illegal occupation before they consider any local laws or how they may affect their licensees interests.


Essentially if you're right (and you're not) BJ had every right to demand that the guy quit his sales (because they are aiding an illegal occupation) in the OCT and the guy had every right to say no. It's like if a company refuses to do business with an other company that uses slave labour and that guys country has some rule that "not doing business with someone who does slave labour is a local crime".

Lets come back later and see what happens with his suit.
 
Last edited:
You're incredible.

The person I am quoting is claiming its violating federal BDS law not normal criminal law. So you two have complete different dispositions at this time.

I've explained to you how the guy (with the BJ license) wouldn't be criminally liable in Israel as he wouldn't be boycotting a "person or body" by not selling in a specific area and that international law does not recognize occupied territories as part of Israel which means that even if your (and the Israeli guys) point was true, it wouldn't trump international law as everyone clearly have a duty to not aid in a internationally recognised illegal occupation before they consider any local laws or how they may affect their licensees.
Please actually read Israeli and American law. Quoting another site covering the lawsuit:

According to AQP, the Israeli laws Unilever directed AQP to violate include:

  • Israel’s non-discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination in the furnishing of a product or public service on the basis of race, religion, nationality, place of origin, gender, sexual orientation, age and residence and
  • Israeli law prohibiting any person from knowingly calling for a boycott against Israel or an area under its control.
According to AQP, the following U.S. laws also prohibit anti-Israel boycotts:

  • The U.S. Export Control Reform Act which prohibits companies from refusing to do business for boycott-related reasons;
  • The U.S. Tax Code’s reporting requirements for activities related to boycotts;
  • The U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act; and
  • Numerous state anti-discrimination policies and anti-boycott laws.

Quoting the relevant part of the Export Reform Act:

Congress declares it is the policy of the United States—

(1) to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any foreign country, against other countries friendly to the United States or against any United States person;
(2) to encourage and, in specified cases, require United States persons engaged in the export of goods or technology or other information to refuse to take actions, including furnishing information or entering into or implementing agreements, which have the effect of furthering or supporting the restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any foreign country against a country friendly to the United States or against any United States person; and
(3) to foster international cooperation and the development of international rules and institutions to assure reasonable access to world supplies.

The US - Israel trade and commercial enhancement act was only introduced so I'm skeptical of bringing it up. However, it's very clear that the Israeli non discrimination law extends to settlers because they are Israeli citizens and you cannot refuse to provide a service that you previously provided to them because they live in settlements.
 
international law
You really need to shut the fuck up about international law. Do you work for the UN or something? Because they're the only people who take the meme known as international law seriously.
International Laws.jpg


I'll give you a hint: law exists only so far as authority is willing and capable to enforce it. And there is no international authority that can or will arrest the USA or Israel. I mean, if it was that easy, Israel wouldn't exist what with all their violations of international law.

And yes, I'll take the L about the specific federal law, however @Catch The Rainbow is correct in that Unilever, with the contract change, is forcing him to break local law. That's generally considered a no-no since contracts are legally binding documents and all that. And since Unilever is a US-based company, he's suing them in US court, as they would have jurisdiction.
 
Please actually read Israeli and American law. Quoting another site covering the lawsuit:



Quoting the relevant part of the Export Reform Act:



The US - Israel trade and commercial enhancement act was only introduced so I'm skeptical of bringing it up. However, it's very clear that the Israeli non discrimination law extends to settlers because they are Israeli citizens and you cannot refuse to provide a service that you previously provided to them because they live in settlements.


The site is wrong and you are unable to read the laws you quote.
I've already quoted you the Israeli law.

1. A body or person is not an area. Israeli settlers of occupied land can still buy their BJs (lol) in Israel. Technicalities matter. edit: Only some 120 major companies of which only about 20 are international (non Israeli) companies operate in those areas. Do you really think that all other major brands are in some kind of contravention of Israeli laws the way the licensee supposedly would be? Of ocurse not.

2. The American Export Reform Act that you quote talks about international (between nations) boycotts. Ben and Jerry is not following a request from any foreign country but is following international law by not supporting an ever expanding illegal occupation for which the UN has called divestment from.

3. No other country defines a "boycott of the state of anything" the way Israel defines it, including, as per example above the United States. The only country that does so is Israel because it is conducting itself in an internationally acknowledged criminal way for 50+ years by occupying but not annexing areas it even claims "full sovereignity" over so as to not give residents in those areas citizenship. Their definition of a boycott is not applicable anywhere except in their own little ethno-state.
 
Last edited:
The Jew sues you and writes op eds instead of just refusing to comply like a man does.

If I had a factory with all the recipes, all the labels, all the ingredients to make the ice cream and I had some nosy moralizing Americans trying to get me to stop, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. What, is the Israeli government going to step in and enforce their BDS demands?

What a fag.


You try doing patent infringement to a company run by a bunch of jews, in israel, a country that will happily sell you out to the us.

I'll watch
 
Back
Top Bottom