WASHINGTON – The State of Arizona has divested all public funds from Unilever, the parent corporation of Ben & Jerry’s, in light of the ice cream company’s decision to halt sales in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This marks the most significant action taken to date on the state level over the move.
Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee announced Tuesday that she is selling off all the notes the state holds in loans to Unilever, after her office informed the company last month that the Ben & Jerry’s decision is in direct violation of Arizona law.
The state’s anti-BDS legislation, passed in 2016, stipulates that public state entities may not invest money with an entity that boycotts Israel or territories under Israeli control.
Yee said she gave Unilever an ultimatum – to reverse Ben & Jerry’s decision or to divest itself of the ice cream company. “Arizona will not do business with companies that are attempting to undermine Israel’s economy and blatantly disregarding Arizona’s law,” Yee said. She added that as Arizona’s chief banking and investment officer, “I stand with Israel, and I will not allow taxpayer dollars to go toward antisemitic, discriminatory efforts against Israel.”
The state’s investments in Unilever are in bonds and commercial paper, according to the Arizona Daily Star. A press release from Yee’s office said that they have been reduced from $143 million as of June 2021 to a current level of $50 million, and will go down to zero by September 21 after its last investment matures.
Arizona is one of eight states known to have investigated whether state-level anti-BDS laws are applicable over the ice cream company’s move, after the Israeli government openly called for the 30-plus U.S. states with such laws to take punitive action against both Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s. Arizona is one of 21 states to explicitly include settlement boycotts as part of their respective definitions of what constitutes a boycott of Israel.
Experts have foreseen investments as one of two areas where these BDS laws could impact Ben & Jerry’s, the other relating to state contracts. Unilever, for its part, allows Ben & Jerry’s to retain an independent board to make such decisions without its approval, and it has respected this agreement following Ben & Jerry’s independent decision.
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder, board chair speak out about decision to freeze ice cream sales to settlements
With these crazy Israeli ice cream flavors, who needs Ben & Jerry’s
A year that made it clear: U.S. ironclad support for Israel no longer assured
Ben & Jerry’s has maintained that its decision does not constitute a boycott of Israel, arguing that “the sale of ice cream in Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with our values,” and its senior leadership has further said that the company never discussed a complete pullout, divestment from or boycott of Israel.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish