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.
 
It's not Illegal because its not boycotting Israel. The settlements are not part of Israel, how hard is it for you to grasp this?
And because Ben and Jerry literally want to do business in Israel it can't be a boycott of the country to begin with.


0% chance his suit gets anywhere unless its on some actual ground like breaking a part of the contract or something. But certainly not on the grounds that the contract was broken because "he refused to do something illegal".


The fact that he's spinning it into that Palestinians in the future might not be able to access medicines is so disgustingly disingenuous I hope he follows through with his bullshit only to spend everything he's earned on a failed multi-year lawsuit.
East Jerusalem is part of Israel. The Israeli buildings in East Jerusalem are considered settlements. The lynchpin of the lawsuit is going to center on East Jerusalem in particular. Please explain more to the Israeli what territory the state of Israel claims. If you bothered to read the text, he makes it very clear.

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.

ie what i said before, you cannot refuse to sell ice cream in a certain place because you think the place is occupied. You also legally cannot comply with any boycott of Israeli settlements under anti BDS laws (yes this means that co-op thing you posted earlier would apply under the anti BDS laws). This makes impossible for any Israeli licensee to follow the law and when a contract forces you to break the law, it is a breach of contract.
 
I don't actually care about businesses not operating in the settlements (McDonalds doesn't for example) but they had to make a big song and dance about it to pander to the very online Israel-obsessed left. Fuck them.

Israel does not lay claim to the West Bank and what B and J want is for him to stop selling Ice-Cream in the Occupied West Bank, meaning Settler-areas that are not internationally recognised as part of Israel.
International law consider East Jerusalem "occupied" though, which is something that Israel won't accept considering it's based on a flimsy ceasefire line from 1949.
 
East Jerusalem is part of Israel. The Israeli buildings in East Jerusalem are considered settlements. The lynchpin of the lawsuit is going to center on East Jerusalem in particular. Please explain more to the Israeli what territory the state of Israel claims. If you bothered to read the text, he makes it very clear.



ie what i said before, you cannot refuse to sell ice cream in a certain place because you think the place is occupied. You also legally cannot comply with any boycott of Israeli settlements under anti BDS laws (yes this means that co-op thing you posted earlier would apply under the anti BDS laws). This makes impossible for any Israeli licensee to follow the law and when a contract forces you to break the law, it is a breach of contract.

First of all he's suing in the US so Israeli law doesn't apply.

Secondly even if it did according to Israeli law though, East Jerusalem is not part of Israel or all those living in East Jerusalem would have to become Israeli Citizens - something the last remaining ethno-state Israel fears. East Jerusalem is administered by the Israeli municipality but people born in it are not necessarily Israelis. One must apply for it - contravening all international norms since basically the start of the modern era. (See this article for the complexities of whether or not East Jerusalem is de Jure Israeli territory : http://institutobrasilisrael.org/cms/assets/uploads/_BIBLIOTECA/_PDF/jerusalém/0fe4496aff41f8a53a4fbe60b43532ce.pdf)

If you want the short version, Israel has claimed total sovereignty over Jerusalem but according to everything I know about the subject has never fully annexed it in the way it has other territories. Israel is of course the only country in the world that meddles in these kind of extremely obscure legalities as a way to justify a permanent occupation and colonization without citizenship rights to its subjugated populations. So not even scholars on international law really know what the fuck is going on.

Thirdly and finally, since you are so goddamn sure, cite me the law - that actually has passed - in the US that forbids boycotts of Israeli settlements in particular for private companies as I cannot find any information on it.
 
Last edited:
First of all he's suing in the US so Israeli law doesn't apply.

Secondly even if it did according to Israeli law though, East Jerusalem is not part of Israel or all those living in East Jerusalem would have to become Israeli Citizens - something the last remaining ethno-state Israel fears. East Jerusalem is administered by the Israeli municipality but people born in it are not necessarily Israelis. One must apply for it - contravening all international norms since basically the start of the modern era. (See this article for the complexities of whether or not East Jerusalem is de Jure Israeli territory : http://institutobrasilisrael.org/cms/assets/uploads/_BIBLIOTECA/_PDF/jerusalém/0fe4496aff41f8a53a4fbe60b43532ce.pdf)

If you want the short version, Israel has claimed total sovereignty over Jerusalem but according to everything I know about the subject has never fully annexed it in the way it has other territories. Israel is of course the only country in the world that meddles in these kind of extremely obscure legalities as a way to justify a permanent occupation and colonization without citizenship rights to its subjugated populations. So not even scholars on international law really know what the fuck is going on.

Thirdly and finally, since you are so goddamn sure, cite me the law - that actually has passed - in the US that forbids boycotts of Israeli settlements in particular for private companies as I cannot find any information on it.
I was citing Israeli law. He is suing in the us because:
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.

Israel never fully annexed East Jerusalem but in practice it's annexed according to the Israeli Supreme court. Therefore I refer to it as annexed although it formally isn't. Hilariously, East Jerusalem is the one place in the "occupied" territories where Palestinians can choose to get an Israeli citizenship. Point being, according to the Israeli Supreme court, the Jerusalem Basic Law, and the extension of israeli control over East Jerusalem, it's considered part of Israel although it was never formally annexed. The boycott is illegal there without it being totally "part of israel" formally.
 
I was citing Israeli law. He is suing in the us because:


Israel never fully annexed East Jerusalem but in practice it's annexed according to the Israeli Supreme court. Therefore I refer to it as annexed although it formally isn't. Hilariously, East Jerusalem is the one place in the "occupied" territories where Palestinians can choose to get an Israeli citizenship. Point being, according to the Israeli Supreme court, the Jerusalem Basic Law, and the extension of israeli control over East Jerusalem, it's considered part of Israel although it was never formally annexed. The boycott is illegal there without it being totally "part of israel" formally.

He's literally saying "violation of US laws" in that text that you are quoting.

He's stupid, you're blind.

/Thread.


"It's considered part of Israel although it was never formally annexed."


Just on a side note:
tell-me-again-how-you-want-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.jpg
 
He's literally saying "violation of US laws" in that text that you are quoting.

He's stupid, you're blind.

/Thread.


"It's considered part of Israel although it was never formally annexed."


Just on a side note:
View attachment 3118828
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.
You cannot require someone to commit a crime in another country as part of a contract and if that person refuses to commit the crime, you cannot terminate the contract because of that. Ask any lawyer, he's right.
 
You cannot require someone to commit a crime in another country as part of a contract and if that person refuses to commit the crime, you cannot terminate the contract because of that. Ask any lawyer, he's right.
So you think that Iran could have legislated in its national parliament that it would be illegal to boycott it and then European companies that withdrew from the country in the wake of US (not European) pressures could be sued by Iran (or Iranian companies) in European courts?

I'm sure Iran would love to hire any lawyer that could win them these cases. Send your suggestions to your local Iranian embassy with ample legal documents and I'm sure they'll reward you handsomely!
 
So you think that Iran could have legislated in its national parliament that it would be illegal to boycott it and then European companies that withdrew from the country in the wake of US (not European) pressures could be sued by Iran (or Iranian companies) in European courts?

I'm sure Iran would love to hire any lawyer that could win them these cases. Send your suggestions to your local Iranian embassy with ample legal documents and I'm sure they'll reward you handsomely!
Yes because in the EU it is illegal to comply with the US sanctions on Iran. The only possible exception is if it causes disproportionate economic loss and that was decided upon based on a lawsuit from the Iranian state bank:

https://archive.ph/P8W17

European companies can end contracts with Iranian firms pressured by U.S. sanctions if upholding the deals would lead to "disproportionate economic loss," the EU's top court said on Tuesday.
The judgment from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg was prompted by a lawsuit from the German branch of Iran's state-owned Bank Melli against Deutsche Telekom (DTEGn.DE) after the telecommunications provider terminated a contract with the bank in 2018 prior to its expiry.

The Higher Regional Court in Hamburg will have to decide whether upholding the contract with Bank Melli would expose Deutsche Telekom, which makes about half of its turnover with its U.S. business, to such a disproportionate economic loss.

you really dont look up hypotheticals before you propose them?
 
Yes because in the EU it is illegal to comply with the US sanctions on Iran. The only possible exception is if it causes disproportionate economic loss and that was decided upon based on a lawsuit from the Iranian state bank:

https://archive.ph/P8W17



you really dont look up hypotheticals before you propose them?


I know it's illegal in the EU according to our laws.
But Iranian companies or the Iranian state could not sue EU companies because they choose not to do partially or fully do business in Iran because of domestic laws.

The EU had to formulate those laws domestically and they were very loose, so as to protect its diplomatic integrity visa vi the Nuclear Deal that they claimed to still uphold despite US opposition.

The fact that they had to make it illegal is argument for my position, not against it. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.
 
I think the fellow does have a point, as IANAL, but this does seem correct to me:
You cannot, as a condition of a contract, demand that a party do something illegal.
If they tried to mandate via contract that he breaks the law, I'm pretty sure that is illegal by American contract standards. How this holds up with the legal autism though regarding Israel's borders, I have no fucking clue.
 
I know it's illegal in the EU according to our laws.
But Iranian companies or the Iranian state could not sue EU companies because they choose not to do partially or fully do business in Iran because of domestic laws.

The EU had to formulate those laws domestically and they were very loose, so as to protect its diplomatic integrity visa vi the Nuclear Deal that they claimed to still uphold despite US opposition.

The fact that they had to make it illegal is argument for my position, not against it. I think you just don't know what you're talking about.
Do you understand the difference between operating fully in a country via a local subsidiary and then demanding the subsidiary violate local law vs just suing a company because it's not in your country or operates in only a certain part of the country?
 
Do you understand the difference between operating fully in a country via a local subsidiary and then demanding the subsidiary violate local law vs just suing a company because it's not in your country or operates in only a certain part of the country?
Its the same thing. Obviously European companies had local subsidiaries and/or local contracts with local companies as well.

The point is that (supposedly/allegedly) Ben and Jerry wanted their "subsidiary" (from hat I understand licensee which is different) to not sell in certain areas that Israel control but that aren't de jure part of Israel. This the licensee made a big fuss about, instead of just pulling out quietly (could easily have been masked as a business decision). It then supposedly transformed into a conflict with local laws as Ben and Jerry doubled down on this now publicly being for political reason and the licensee refused.

I say supposedly because what is the person or entity that the licensee would refuse to deal with in violation of local laws? A geographical area could hardly be defined as a person or entity , which is why Im not even convinced that the licensee was in violation of local laws had he agreed to pull out. In fact it seems to me more that Ben and Jerry was in direct violation of local laws by pulling out from the contract based on a so called "boycott" (only a boycott in Israeli legal jargon at best) and had never pressured the licensee to commit any crimes.

This is a seeming minute but possibly important difference, though I doubt it matters at all. The point though is that the man was never asked to break any local laws as divestment from an area is not a boycott of an entity or person. The only boycott that happened (or breach of contract due to boycott) was, at best, of the licensee by Ben and Jerry.

Regardless of the situation, as per the examples already listed, I highly doubt that these local tort laws will trump international law.

Feel free to have the last word.
 
Ben & Jerry’s is mediocre quality ice cream at double the price. Sure, it has lots of chunks, but so do other ice creams.

Either get ice cream that’s actually worth the price, or just get yourself some Hood, man. Green Monster Mint, or Rhode Island Coffee Chunk, for example.
 
TL : DR - Globalization ruins everything, and the lawyers will never complain about the years of billable hours to settle contractual grievances that never would have arisen under the old system of State Capitalism because it'll take months just to figure out what jurisdiction it all goes under.
 
Its the same thing. Obviously European companies had local subsidiaries and/or local contracts with local companies as well.

The point is that (supposedly/allegedly) Ben and Jerry wanted their "subsidiary" (from hat I understand licensee which is different) to not sell in certain areas that Israel control but that aren't de jure part of Israel. This the licensee made a big fuss about, instead of just pulling out quietly (could easily have been masked as a business decision). It then supposedly transformed into a conflict with local laws as Ben and Jerry doubled down on this now publicly being for political reason and the licensee refused.

I say supposedly because what is the person or entity that the licensee would refuse to deal with in violation of local laws? A geographical area could hardly be defined as a person or entity , which is why Im not even convinced that the licensee was in violation of local laws had he agreed to pull out. In fact it seems to me more that Ben and Jerry was in direct violation of local laws by pulling out from the contract based on a so called "boycott" (only a boycott in Israeli legal jargon at best) and had never pressured the licensee to commit any crimes.

This is a seeming minute but possibly important difference, though I doubt it matters at all. The point though is that the man was never asked to break any local laws as divestment from an area is not a boycott of an entity or person. The only boycott that happened (or breach of contract due to boycott) was, at best, of the licensee by Ben and Jerry.

Regardless of the situation, as per the examples already listed, I highly doubt that these local tort laws will trump international law.

Feel free to have the last word.
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.
 
Hmm. Gotta wonder if it's even worth it. The guy has spent 30 years learning how to run an ice cream shop chain in Israel, including manufacturing and creating new flavors. Maybe the best thing to happen to him would be to lose the license - and then turn around and start his own upmarket ice cream brand with shops in the same locations. Less trouble and no licensing fees.
That requires capital and it's probably why he's suing. If he can prove in American courts they violated the contract he should get a payout. From there he might also be a hero to local businessmen who took B&J to task and would like to invest in his business.

He might also just be really angry a multinational conglomerate doesn't pay attention to the nuance of people's lives and treats them as expendable commodities for political cause. He's not wrong, though, that the various orgs he's worked with and their efforts to uplift Palestinians is how you bridge the gap. You don't coddle, you don't call them victims and you sure as fuck do not excuse their antics.
 
Back
Top Bottom