Now Ben & Jerry’s finds itself facing a real boycott

Read More

There was no doubt self-righteous pleasure among those boycotting Ben & Jerry’s after the company announced in July that it would no longer sell its ice cream in the settlements. But it’s unlikely that either Ben or Jerry, much less Unilever, its corporate parent, lost much sleep over it.

The headlines are uncomfortable for Unilever, but it’s unlikely a consumer boycott will put a dent in sales, and certainly not for very long. In fact, for Ben & Jerry’s, a boycott by settlement supporters is great PR, a boost for the brand image the company so carefully cultivates of being politically progressive. What could be better for a left-wing ice cream maker than to be spurned by right-wing consumers?

But there’s another boycott underway that could cause Unilever pain and, oddly enough, it’s being done under the banner of fighting boycotts.

So far, at least four U.S. states have announced plans to divest Unilever stock from their state pension fund portfolios and in some cases to cease awarding contracts to the company. Now we’re talking about real money and long-term loss.

The latest of the states to announce such plans is Florida, which holds $139 million in securities in Unilever and subsidiaries. New Jersey has said it will divest its $182 million in securities and Arizona has already begun unloading the first of its $143 million. Illinois has threatened to do the same, as has New York.

I’ve always said that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement would never have an economic impact so long as governments didn’t join in. Counting on consumers would never get it very far. Now governments have joined in – but in favor of the other side.

Just desserts

A count by the Foundation for Middle East Peace shows that 34 states have adopted anti-BDS laws that require state governments to boycott the boycotters. The list includes nearly all of the largest states, among them California, Texas and New York, which adds up to a lot of pension investment money and contracts if they all follow through.

The anti-BDS legislation is controversial and has often failed to stand court tests challenging them as an assault of First Amendment rights to free speech. The laws’ proponents generally defend them on the grounds that anyone exclusively targeting Israel or even settlers is ipso facto engaged in discrimination based on religion or nationality. In a similar vein, the lawsuits launched against Airbnb after it announced it would stop listing homes in West Bank settlements were based on its alleged violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act by discriminating against settlers, all of whom are Jews.

This is all based on a simple equation, and one the Israeli right and its supporters regard as axiomatic: Criticizing Israel “disproportionately” and/or opposing the settlements = anti-Zionism and the denial of Israel’s right to exist = antisemitism.

But in the real world, things aren’t so simple. No doubt BDS is supported by antisemites, but it’s also supported by people who feel strongly about human rights and don’t like the occupation. They may be naive about the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but that doesn’t mean they are motivated by hatred of Jews or Israelis.

The anti-BDS legislation doesn’t take that into account. Indeed, in 21 of the 34 state laws there’s no distinction between boycotting Israel and boycotting the settlements. Boycotting the settlements automatically makes you subject to a law that assumes you are now engaged in racist activity.

A Ben & Jerry’s freezer at a store in Efrat, the West BankRONEN ZVULUN/REUTERS

How absurd this is evident in the Ben & Jerry’s affair. If the company was antisemitic, how come it had been not only operating in Israel for more than three decades and selling its ice cream even in the extremist community of Yizhar all that time? Did its board suddenly decide this past summer that it indeed hates Jews and/or Israelis, or settlers? Did its announcement of the settlement boycott reference the Protocol of the Elders of Zion? Has it said it will stop selling ice cream to all Jews or all Israelis?

The absurdity gets worse when it comes to Unilever. Since Ben & Jerry’s is wholly owned by Unilever, the states can’t divest Ben & Jerry’s stock. So they have to punish Unilever, which apparently had no say in the settlements ban, has explicitly said it will continue to do business in Israel, and still sells its own products there, including in the settlements, through its local subsidiary. Even by the anti-discrimination test set by anti-BDS legislation, Unilever can’t possibly be called out. Nevertheless, it is falling victim to badly conceived legislation.

Ironically, there is a smaller, less effective movement in Europe to do the opposite and force companies like Unilever to boycott the settlements. In this case, it isn’t coming from governments but from institutional investors, usually affiliated with governments. It hasn’t gathered anything like the momentum yet to pose a serious threat to the settlements, much less to Israel. But the phenomenon of pressuring big corporations to observe human rights and environmental standards, among others, is growing.

The anti-BDS laws should be rescinded. They are part of an unfortunate effort to push the business world into the frontline of political disputes where they don’t belong. Advocates say, of course, that they want to make business do the right thing, as they define it. But more often, it just stokes controversy over symbolic issues without changing the situation on the ground by one iota. Even big business isn’t that powerful.

As one BDS opponent told the Financial Times, “Does denying Jews and Arabs ice cream because of where they live help bring peace?” Of course not, but the reverse is true, too: forcing companies to sell their ice cream against their will solves nothing.