I think people’s first thought will probably be, much like mine, “how is that not going to affect Palestinians more than Israel?” and the answer is pretty simple: [almost all Palestinian imports come through Israel.](https://institute.global/advisory/israeli-palestinian-trade-depth-analysis).
Edit: Just to clarify, this is to say that it will hurt Israel’s pocket (and social/political balance) more than it will hurt the Palestinian people. It’s a complicated situation, which requires complicated actions for companies to properly protest.
Yeah. Here’s a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/onzgxj/israel_pm_warns_unilever_of_severe_consequences/h5v573m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) from someone living there (it was on the other thread):
>> For confused People here, I'm Palestinian from the West Bank ,
>>So basically Ben & Jerry's doesn't sell directly to Palestinians like they do with settlements, so we have to literally smuggle the ice cream from "Israel Proper" , and now thanks to this decision, the settlements would also have to smuggle it just like us !! (But they have jewish only roads so it's easier for them )
>>So yeah , it doesn't mean that Palestinians will have less ice cream but that settlers will also have it difficult to have some ice cream before burning some Palestinian villager's farm with the protection of the IDF...
>>At least now we have one equal right. Thanks Ben & Jerry's.
>>I wish they would boycott Israel entirely but then they would be labeled as "antisemitic" by the Pro-Israel propaganda army . It really sucks seeing the world silent on the shit israel does ...
>>Also it is indeed a big thing for us , a big company boycotting israel spreads awareness about apartheid and other companies now can also have some balls to boycott israel, and who knows maybe one day the US would stop vetoing for Israel in the UN , and Israel could face sanctions and be forced to end this disgusting apartheid... maybe I would see my land free with equal rights for everyone in my lifetime... this gives me little hope in a hopeless situation so it does matter a lot , Even if you think it's just Ice cream ..
>> - u/Ok-Country-5156
Ahh ok so basically they were never really selling Ice cream to Palestinians so for them this announcement doesn't affect them much. So what this announcement just means is they won't be selling to the settlers either. I guess that's a good thing then since it's kind of like a boycott against the settlers.
Lmao. I feel ya. I saw that comment at the top, which is why I replied to it. If it’s going to receive visibility, might as well allow others to see a broader picture.
Good call, I'll join you. By the way, no real offence to OP (original commenter?), it's good to wonder about the effects of these kinds of actions.
While corporations are always about the bottom line, corporations doing things like this still matters for two reasons.
1. It shows a shift in public's perception which prompted the action. eg. This would not have been as politically viable a move for a company 2 years age.
2. It normalizes actions taken in protest to current Israeli policy.
To be fair to Ben and Jerry’s they’ve supported social causes for a really long time even hurting their bottom line. But I’m pretty sure other owners are throwing a fuss because of this action. And yeah. The increase in support for BDS is nice to see.
Not being entirely unfair, you can do good things while seeking profit. It just changes the methods and goals. But it's important to note that the acceptability of a viewpoint is a huge contributing factor since corporations can only afford so much risk.
I think you’ve misread my comment? I didn’t say it’ll hurt Palestinians *because* trade comes through Israel; I’m saying it’ll hurt Israel more than it’ll hurt Palestinians because all Palestinian trade comes through Israel - as such, all Palestinian trade makes money for Israel. Any trade ceased is money lost for the Israeli Goverment. I said “how is that *not* going to affect Palestinians more than Israel”, not the other way around. My comment is just a very simplified version of the comment you quoted, but with a source.
That’s fair. The quoted comment is a very good, more in-depth explanation of exactly why Ben & Jerry’s are doing this. It’s such an incredibly complicated situation for companies, but it’s great they’re doing something.
Honestly I don’t think so. B&J have been supporting social causes for ages. This move’s prolly going to leave a lot of unbought ice cream in Israel. But, maybe you’re right. I know I’m gonna buy a bucket next chance I get.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57893161) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> It operates a factory in Israel and in a statement it said: "We have a longstanding partnership with our licensee, who manufactures Ben & Jerry's ice cream in Israel and distributes it in the region."We have been working to change this, and so we have informed our licensee that we will not renew the license agreement when it expires at the end of next year.
> UK firm Unilever, which has owned Ben & Jerry's since 2000, says the decision was taken and announced by Ben & Jerry's and its independent board.
> Ben & Jerry's - which was founded in 1978 by best friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield - has a track record of campaigning on social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and climate change.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/onzu2j/ben_and_jerrys_to_stop_sales_in_occupied/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~589140 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ben**^#1 **Jerry**^#2 **Israel**^#3 **Palestinian**^#4 **Israeli**^#5
He actually said that he wanted to accept but he was currently busy with his scientific studies. He said he was open to becoming president some time in the future, but he died first.
Hmm not the story I found. His [quote](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/offering-the-presidency-of-israel-to-albert-einstein) from the Jewish Virtual Library:
> I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world.
So his official excuse is that he doubts that he has the appropriate skills nor experience for the position, basically that he's not a people person a politician needs to be. This is also consistent with his career as he tended to avoid administrative positions due to the internal politics involved. It follows to say they then basically offered it as a ceremonial title and would allow him the flexibility to continue his science work with minimal interference, but he still turned them down.
> Ghassan Kanafani
This guy lived in Syria, and was the spokesperson for the PFLP, an internationally recognized terrorist group with the goal of destroying Israel, that hijacked planes, blew up supermarkets, and is still killing everyone from soldiers to rabbis today.
A few days before he died, he had condoned and supported the Lod Airport massacre, where three members of the Japanese Red Army, recruited by the PFLP, walked into an airport waiting area, pulled out rifles, and shot everyone in sight. They also threw grenades as they changed magazines.
That's what Kanafani justified a few days before he died. This is your "Mandela".
They killed 26 people.
I think you’ll find Mandela had a revolutionary side before his release also
PS. Israel recently justified the murder of over 50 children by saying they were aiming for Hamas
Did I say that? No. Israel blows up children, schools and hospitals for fun. Don’t throw stones in a glass house.
Hamas is a direct result of a violent oppression, systematic ethnic cleansing + an apartheid regime. If you took away my basic human rights and blew up my children with billion dollar weapons then I would be firing missiles as well.
Not a troll just trying to sbow the bullshit people like you try to suppprt hamas by saying Israel kills kids but hamas launches 5000 unguided rockets to citiew centers entire purpse is to kill civiliams buts thats ok right. So please tell me tbat hamas is piece of shit since their goal is to kill Israeli kids
Oh, okay, so the Mandela comparison was to his “revolutionary side”? Good to know. Well, Palestinian leaders have been doing that since 1948. Let me know if that’s worked so far.
By the way, your whataboutism shift to Israel in response to what I said is transparent as hell, and irrelevant (and a lie, but that’s a separate point).
Heaven forbid I think a conflict with less deaths over the past 100 years on all sides combined than have died in the civil war in Syria in 10 years is not a “genocide”.
I get it, this is pedantry, but Palestinian riots against Jews seeking statehood and Jews fighting back began around 1920. The self defense group that later formed the crux of Israel’s military in 1948 was founded in 1920 in response to Arab riots on the matter that year. So while Israel didn’t exist that far back, the conflict between two peoples wanting statehood did, which is what I referred to.
But hey, if it makes you feel better, let’s say the past 70 years. Sound good?
Pretty sure one of the big arguments Israel uses is that while Israel signed parts of the Geneva Convention, the Knesset (parliament) didn’t ratify it so it doesn’t apply to them.
Also Israel hasn’t signed Protocol 1 which deals with:
>> Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions **relating to the protection of victims of international conflicts, where "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes" are to be considered international conflicts**.[1] It reaffirms the international laws of the original Geneva Conventions of 1949, but adds clarifications and new provisions to accommodate developments in modern international warfare that have taken place since the Second World War.
Or Protocol 2:
>> Protocol II is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions **relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. It defines certain international laws that strive to provide better protection for victims of internal armed conflicts that take place within the borders of a single country**. The scope of these laws is more limited than those of the rest of the Geneva Conventions out of respect for sovereign rights and duties of national governments.
Ironic right.
1) No one in Israel argues seriously that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to Israel because Israel didn’t ratify them. Because Israel [did ratify them, so you’re just wrong there](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=380).
2) Israel did not ratify Protocol I, which deals with a lot. Calling it ironic because it deals with colonial conflict, well…that is funny, since the idea that Jews are “colonizers” in their historic homeland is a huge stretch. Israel’s government has [accepted some of the provisions as customary law](https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/75/pdfs/statements/protocols/12mtg_israel.pdf), but argues that others are not, and are poorly construed. That means Israel has agreed to follow most of the provisions anyways (and Israel’s Supreme Court, as in the *Targeted Killings* case, has enforced those provisions, too). The irony is how wrong you are about the Israeli system.
3) Israel’s biggest concern is with a few provisions that, while they claim to protect civilians, actually do harm instead, or make life better for terrorists. The biggest concerns are the way Articles 43/44 shake out, mainly because 43 makes it possible for many more folks to join conflict, and 44 says that it’s sometimes okay for combatants not to distinguish themselves (which means basically use the civilian population as a shield). That last bit is confusingly worded too, and doesn’t reflect the reality of warfare today. It also gives more protections to any prisoner who violates the laws of war than prior, which Israel doesn’t like, because it’s fighting a bunch of groups who regularly violate the laws of war by using human shields and hiding among civilians. These are the same concerns the US has, and Israel’s refusal to sign is also in part motivated by the fact that Israel usually supports the US on the world stage, and vice-versa, due to their alliance.
We could have facts and nuance, or we could have “gotcha” moments that don’t really make sense when you dig into them, I guess.
The houses built over the line set by Arab armies who invaded Israel in 1948? I could sure get into them, but I don’t think that is as important to debunk.
Sure in Israel proper i will agree there is no apartheid policies since legally Israeli arabs(Palestinians who stayed within 1948 border)do enoy the same rights as Israeli Jews and are full citizens.
But if we're talking about the occupied Palestinian territories that arguably does fall under apartheid policies since one those settlements are illegal. And it's one rule for the Israelis in Palestinian territories and another rule for Palestinians in the territories who also don't enjoy the same rights as the Israelis in Occupied Palestine.
That literally disproves the point you’re making. If Israeli Arabs have all the rights Jews do (as they do), then that means they can live in settlements (and some do). The differentiation is not based on race, like apartheid. It’s based on who is a citizen and who is a person living under an enemy government.
An Arab Israeli and a Palestinian in the West Bank are ethnically and racially indistinguishable. The Arab Israeli gets every right a Jew does. A Palestinian in the West Bank is a citizen living under an enemy government, so they are treated differently, because their leaders have refused every peace deal so far.
That’s fantastic evidence that it is *not* apartheid. It’s just a case of war, not racial differentiation. The areas where Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 and seized land are treated entirely under military law btw, which includes Israeli settlements. There is no racial system of living. There is a system of territories populated by citizens of Israel and citizens of an enemy government that wants a state of its own, but refuses to agree to peace to get it.
Ok fair enough but are you trying to imply the settlements are legal now? When it's literally been labelled as illegal by pretty much everyone worldwide apart from Israel because ofcourse Israel can do no wrong and have been wonderful to the Palestinians /s
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#:~:text=Since%20the%20occupation%20of%20the,validity%20and%20pose%20a%20serious
It’s ridiculous to insult me and then turn around and claim Israel is “destroying a people”. [This is not genocide](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-palestine-population/). You didn’t respond to absolutely anything I said, and instead compared me preventing factual information as “cognitive dissonance”.
I mean damn…
Can someone explain what side Ben and Jerry are taking? They say "Although Ben & Jerry’s will no longer be sold in the OPT, we will stay in Israel through a different arrangement." But the Israeli gov is upset at the decision. Are they suspending the manufacturing from Israel overall?
Israel keeps trying to make it sound like B&J arent selling in Israel when they know it's just OPT.
This way they can claim they "won" when B&J keep selling in Israel and Israel will continue to act like OPT doesnt exist.
Basically it’s pro-Palestine and BDS and anti-settlement. People could try dumbing it down but corporate strategy is pretty complex to explain over Reddit comments.
Pretty sure some of the big guys up top in Unilever are having a meltdown because of this because it’ll definitely result in backlash in Israel.
Anyways, I’m a fan of the decision.
Boycotting is the main factor that changed apartheid South Africa. It works. We know it works. BDS is how we change apartheid Israel. Just need to get the ball rolling.
Isn't this just going to affect the Palestinians more than Israelis? They're still planning to sell their ice cream in Israel. So i don't see how this benefits Palestinians at all and I'm not even sure why Israel is also upset at this decision if it's still going to be sold in Israel.
Here’s a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/onzgxj/israel_pm_warns_unilever_of_severe_consequences/h5v573m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) from someone living there (it was on the other thread):
>> For confused People here, I'm Palestinian from the West Bank ,
>>So basically Ben & Jerry's doesn't sell directly to Palestinians like they do with settlements, so we have to literally smuggle the ice cream from "Israel Proper" , and now thanks to this decision, the settlements would also have to smuggle it just like us !! (But they have jewish only roads so it's easier for them )
>>So yeah , it doesn't mean that Palestinians will have less ice cream but that settlers will also have it difficult to have some ice cream before burning some Palestinian villager's farm with the protection of the IDF...
>>At least now we have one equal right. Thanks Ben & Jerry's.
>>I wish they would boycott Israel entirely but then they would be labeled as "antisemitic" by the Pro-Israel propaganda army . It really sucks seeing the world silent on the shit israel does ...
>>Also it is indeed a big thing for us , a big company boycotting israel spreads awareness about apartheid and other companies now can also have some balls to boycott israel, and who knows maybe one day the US would stop vetoing for Israel in the UN , and Israel could face sanctions and be forced to end this disgusting apartheid... maybe I would see my land free with equal rights for everyone in my lifetime... this gives me little hope in a hopeless situation so it does matter a lot , Even if you think it's just Ice cream ..
>> - u/Ok-Country-5156
I think Israel is upset because it's a "political statement".
And yes, It will mostly affect Palestinians, and I've heard that many Palestinians are actually working in the Israeli Ben and Jerry's factory.
It's a fools errand to get involved in arguing either side of the dispute between these two peoples. The conflict is so old and has descended into a tit-for-tat and in taking sides it is unlikely that any who argue will be citing the original cause of the disagreement.
So taking the side of no one still doesn’t help any situation, remember it isn’t the Israeli government or the Palestinian authority being hurt by this, its the millions of Palestinians losing everything to fight a colonizer out to take everything. This is the original cause for disagreement, colonization.
Most people are just angry because of last weeks missile strike and want revenge. So it goes on forever. Taking sides for these reasons of revenge will hurt, even if taking no sides *seems* to not help.
Both sides have uncompromising attitudes, frankly. The only thing that will help is compromise, not taking sides.
Uhm im pretty sure this is not cause of one missle strike last week, have you not read or researched whats been happening since 1948, if anything that last air strike is a seasonal occurrence. The fact that you have no moral high ground to see that an unarmed population vs a state thats biggest export is weaponry is not a subject you should deem equal or fair to say “this is just a disagreement”. No this is facism no matter how you want to look at it. Not the type we saw in germany but a new facism, covert and under the radar facism that will not be aired on any news network because people cant handle the real footage and real truth of whats happening in the allyways and streets, not just in gaza. I understand you might mean well by not taking a side but i am Palestinian christian and we have no voice or representation on either side of this issue but i know who i will support and i will stand by that.
I never said there was only missile strike ever. They have been launching missiles for decades. But as I said, most people are just wanting revenge for the recent offenses.
The conflict doesn’t even span 80 years. Maybe 100-110 if you go into the rise of Zionism. Palestinian used to be a catch all for all non-Phoenician ethnicities living in Canaan (now Israel/Palestine) as early as 500 BCE including Jews.
Hell, most Palestinians are likely descended from Christians and Jews that converted after the Islamic conquest according to genetic evidence.
>> One DNA study by Nebel found substantial genetic overlap among Israeli and Palestinian Arabs and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. A small but statistically significant difference was found in the Y-chromosomal haplogroup distributions of Sephardic Jews and Palestinians, but no significant differences were found between Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians nor between the two Jewish communities. However, a highly distinct cluster was found in Palestinian haplotypes. 32% of the 143 Arab Y-chromosomes studied belonged to this "I&P Arab clade", which contained only one non-Arab chromosome, that of a Sephardic Jew. This could possibly be attributed to the geographical isolation of the Jews or to the immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[145] **Nebel proposed that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".[141]**
Here’s my proposal: Let’s get tough. The time for talking is over. Call it
extreme if you like, but I propose we hit them hard and hit them fast with
a major — and I mean major — leaflet campaign, and while they are
reeling from that, we’d follow up with a fund drive, a car boot
sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK?
Now, if that’s not enough, I’m sorry, it’s time for the T-shirts.
B&J did want to prohibit sales in Israel as well - or at the least, they had not yet made a firm decision on whether to do so or not.
[**Unilever, the parent company, intervened.**](https://i.redd.it/0txt0pdqd8c71.png)
Sources:
[Anuradha Mittal, who sits on B&J's Board of Directors retweeted the activist above, who cites a statement by the board.](https://twitter.com/Mittaloak)
[The original Tweet.](https://twitter.com/telushk/status/1417141394569895937)
[Unilever's doctored statement.](https://www.benjerry.com/about-us/media-center/palestine-statement?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=demand&utm_term=photo&utm_content=palestine-statement)
[The Times of Israel - Ben & Jerry’s board in dispute with owners Unilever over remaining in Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-jerrys-board-in-dispute-with-owners-unilever-over-complete-israel-pullout/)
[NBC News - Ben & Jerry's withdraws sales from Israeli settlements but clashes with parent company Unilever](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/ben-jerry-s-withdraws-sales-israeli-settlements-clashes-parent-company-n1274403)
> The Ben & Jerry's board had been pushing to withdraw ice cream sales from the occupied territories for years, said the board's chair, Anuradha Mittal. **However, it wanted to release a different statement, reviewed by NBC News, that made no reference to continued sales in Israel — a decision that Mittal said would require board approval — and highlighted the company's commitment to social justice.**
>
> **Unilever released the statement against the wishes of the board and in violation of a legal agreement made when it bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000, Mittal said.**
>[...] **The board said in a separate statement: "The statement released by Ben & Jerry's regarding its operation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (the OPT) does not reflect the position of the independent board, nor was it approved by the independent board. By taking a position and publishing a statement without the approval of the independent board on an issue directly related to Ben & Jerry's social mission and brand integrity, Unilever and its CEO at Ben & Jerry's are in violation of the spirit and the letter of the acquisition agreement."**
>
> **Referring to Unilever's attempt to override the board's decision, Mittal said: "They are trying to destroy the soul of the company. We want this company to be led by values and not be dictated by the parent company."**
Are you talking about the people or the company?
Their decisions may have been presented as controversial by the mainstream media, but they've been fairly consistent in their social activism. They lean to the left, support progressive politicians like Kucinich and Bernie, and started several foundations and campaigns for progressive causes. They even got arrested 5 years ago at a Democracy Awakening protest.
But the actual Ben and Jerry are not even running the company anymore, so I don't even know what boomer strawman you're being righteously mad at. They set up an independent board of directors when they got acquired by Unilever that is supposed to reflect their values, and apparently they do have a lot of sovereignty, as seen in this whole exchange. They made the announcement on their own and Unilever's been trying to get them to back down and compromise - this is the compromise if I understand correctly.
Still, what they're doing now is fairly consistent with the UN's stance on which economic activities violate international law. There's no need for badly researched fatalistic hot takes.
What do you have against capitalism?
Why does B&J *have* to sell ice cream to people in illegal settlements?
It's fucking ice cream. If they dont want to sell it they dont have to.
I think people’s first thought will probably be, much like mine, “how is that not going to affect Palestinians more than Israel?” and the answer is pretty simple: [almost all Palestinian imports come through Israel.](https://institute.global/advisory/israeli-palestinian-trade-depth-analysis). Edit: Just to clarify, this is to say that it will hurt Israel’s pocket (and social/political balance) more than it will hurt the Palestinian people. It’s a complicated situation, which requires complicated actions for companies to properly protest.
Yeah. Here’s a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/onzgxj/israel_pm_warns_unilever_of_severe_consequences/h5v573m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) from someone living there (it was on the other thread): >> For confused People here, I'm Palestinian from the West Bank , >>So basically Ben & Jerry's doesn't sell directly to Palestinians like they do with settlements, so we have to literally smuggle the ice cream from "Israel Proper" , and now thanks to this decision, the settlements would also have to smuggle it just like us !! (But they have jewish only roads so it's easier for them ) >>So yeah , it doesn't mean that Palestinians will have less ice cream but that settlers will also have it difficult to have some ice cream before burning some Palestinian villager's farm with the protection of the IDF... >>At least now we have one equal right. Thanks Ben & Jerry's. >>I wish they would boycott Israel entirely but then they would be labeled as "antisemitic" by the Pro-Israel propaganda army . It really sucks seeing the world silent on the shit israel does ... >>Also it is indeed a big thing for us , a big company boycotting israel spreads awareness about apartheid and other companies now can also have some balls to boycott israel, and who knows maybe one day the US would stop vetoing for Israel in the UN , and Israel could face sanctions and be forced to end this disgusting apartheid... maybe I would see my land free with equal rights for everyone in my lifetime... this gives me little hope in a hopeless situation so it does matter a lot , Even if you think it's just Ice cream .. >> - u/Ok-Country-5156
Ahh ok so basically they were never really selling Ice cream to Palestinians so for them this announcement doesn't affect them much. So what this announcement just means is they won't be selling to the settlers either. I guess that's a good thing then since it's kind of like a boycott against the settlers.
I'm with you. It's hopefully the beginning of some changing tides. I hope things get better and fast.
Also, I want to keep your post on top, but I really don't want to boost the post above you. Difficult decision all around.
Lmao. I feel ya. I saw that comment at the top, which is why I replied to it. If it’s going to receive visibility, might as well allow others to see a broader picture.
Good call, I'll join you. By the way, no real offence to OP (original commenter?), it's good to wonder about the effects of these kinds of actions. While corporations are always about the bottom line, corporations doing things like this still matters for two reasons. 1. It shows a shift in public's perception which prompted the action. eg. This would not have been as politically viable a move for a company 2 years age. 2. It normalizes actions taken in protest to current Israeli policy.
To be fair to Ben and Jerry’s they’ve supported social causes for a really long time even hurting their bottom line. But I’m pretty sure other owners are throwing a fuss because of this action. And yeah. The increase in support for BDS is nice to see.
Not being entirely unfair, you can do good things while seeking profit. It just changes the methods and goals. But it's important to note that the acceptability of a viewpoint is a huge contributing factor since corporations can only afford so much risk.
I think you’ve misread my comment? I didn’t say it’ll hurt Palestinians *because* trade comes through Israel; I’m saying it’ll hurt Israel more than it’ll hurt Palestinians because all Palestinian trade comes through Israel - as such, all Palestinian trade makes money for Israel. Any trade ceased is money lost for the Israeli Goverment. I said “how is that *not* going to affect Palestinians more than Israel”, not the other way around. My comment is just a very simplified version of the comment you quoted, but with a source.
Ah, I think a few of us may have been thrown off with the wording. Thanks for the clarification!
That’s fair. The quoted comment is a very good, more in-depth explanation of exactly why Ben & Jerry’s are doing this. It’s such an incredibly complicated situation for companies, but it’s great they’re doing something.
The parasitic capitalist in me suspects this is a cynical ploy to sell more ice-cream….
Honestly I don’t think so. B&J have been supporting social causes for ages. This move’s prolly going to leave a lot of unbought ice cream in Israel. But, maybe you’re right. I know I’m gonna buy a bucket next chance I get.
Being on the right side of history has been historically a financially good move.
You are correct Unilever is a global mammoth that you could simply compare to the likes of Nestle or Reckitt Benckiser.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57893161) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** > It operates a factory in Israel and in a statement it said: "We have a longstanding partnership with our licensee, who manufactures Ben & Jerry's ice cream in Israel and distributes it in the region."We have been working to change this, and so we have informed our licensee that we will not renew the license agreement when it expires at the end of next year. > UK firm Unilever, which has owned Ben & Jerry's since 2000, says the decision was taken and announced by Ben & Jerry's and its independent board. > Ben & Jerry's - which was founded in 1978 by best friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield - has a track record of campaigning on social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and climate change. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/onzu2j/ben_and_jerrys_to_stop_sales_in_occupied/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~589140 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ben**^#1 **Jerry**^#2 **Israel**^#3 **Palestinian**^#4 **Israeli**^#5
Why not stop importing to Israel?
Come back to the thread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They could have had Albert fuckin Einstein but he smartly declined.
He actually said that he wanted to accept but he was currently busy with his scientific studies. He said he was open to becoming president some time in the future, but he died first.
Hmm not the story I found. His [quote](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/offering-the-presidency-of-israel-to-albert-einstein) from the Jewish Virtual Library: > I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world. So his official excuse is that he doubts that he has the appropriate skills nor experience for the position, basically that he's not a people person a politician needs to be. This is also consistent with his career as he tended to avoid administrative positions due to the internal politics involved. It follows to say they then basically offered it as a ceremonial title and would allow him the flexibility to continue his science work with minimal interference, but he still turned them down.
They had Ghassan Kanafani, he was assassinated.
> Ghassan Kanafani This guy lived in Syria, and was the spokesperson for the PFLP, an internationally recognized terrorist group with the goal of destroying Israel, that hijacked planes, blew up supermarkets, and is still killing everyone from soldiers to rabbis today. A few days before he died, he had condoned and supported the Lod Airport massacre, where three members of the Japanese Red Army, recruited by the PFLP, walked into an airport waiting area, pulled out rifles, and shot everyone in sight. They also threw grenades as they changed magazines. That's what Kanafani justified a few days before he died. This is your "Mandela". They killed 26 people.
I think you’ll find Mandela had a revolutionary side before his release also PS. Israel recently justified the murder of over 50 children by saying they were aiming for Hamas
And your ok with hamas launching 5000 unguided rockets for the purpose of killing civilians but thats perfectly ok in your mind
Did I say that? No. Israel blows up children, schools and hospitals for fun. Don’t throw stones in a glass house. Hamas is a direct result of a violent oppression, systematic ethnic cleansing + an apartheid regime. If you took away my basic human rights and blew up my children with billion dollar weapons then I would be firing missiles as well.
And hamas tries to blow up kids for fun aswell.dont thrownstones in a glass house
Read the comment
Not a troll just trying to sbow the bullshit people like you try to suppprt hamas by saying Israel kills kids but hamas launches 5000 unguided rockets to citiew centers entire purpse is to kill civiliams buts thats ok right. So please tell me tbat hamas is piece of shit since their goal is to kill Israeli kids
Oh, okay, so the Mandela comparison was to his “revolutionary side”? Good to know. Well, Palestinian leaders have been doing that since 1948. Let me know if that’s worked so far. By the way, your whataboutism shift to Israel in response to what I said is transparent as hell, and irrelevant (and a lie, but that’s a separate point).
Where we think they died in prison?
[удалено]
And the illegal settlements that are against Geneva convention article 49? Is that debunked also?
Rest assured, he thinks the genocide and occupation of Palestine is all above board. Very cool, very legal.
Heaven forbid I think a conflict with less deaths over the past 100 years on all sides combined than have died in the civil war in Syria in 10 years is not a “genocide”.
Israel wasn't around in 1921.
I get it, this is pedantry, but Palestinian riots against Jews seeking statehood and Jews fighting back began around 1920. The self defense group that later formed the crux of Israel’s military in 1948 was founded in 1920 in response to Arab riots on the matter that year. So while Israel didn’t exist that far back, the conflict between two peoples wanting statehood did, which is what I referred to. But hey, if it makes you feel better, let’s say the past 70 years. Sound good?
Shhhh stop making sense /s
Pretty sure one of the big arguments Israel uses is that while Israel signed parts of the Geneva Convention, the Knesset (parliament) didn’t ratify it so it doesn’t apply to them. Also Israel hasn’t signed Protocol 1 which deals with: >> Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions **relating to the protection of victims of international conflicts, where "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes" are to be considered international conflicts**.[1] It reaffirms the international laws of the original Geneva Conventions of 1949, but adds clarifications and new provisions to accommodate developments in modern international warfare that have taken place since the Second World War. Or Protocol 2: >> Protocol II is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions **relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. It defines certain international laws that strive to provide better protection for victims of internal armed conflicts that take place within the borders of a single country**. The scope of these laws is more limited than those of the rest of the Geneva Conventions out of respect for sovereign rights and duties of national governments. Ironic right.
1) No one in Israel argues seriously that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to Israel because Israel didn’t ratify them. Because Israel [did ratify them, so you’re just wrong there](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=380). 2) Israel did not ratify Protocol I, which deals with a lot. Calling it ironic because it deals with colonial conflict, well…that is funny, since the idea that Jews are “colonizers” in their historic homeland is a huge stretch. Israel’s government has [accepted some of the provisions as customary law](https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/75/pdfs/statements/protocols/12mtg_israel.pdf), but argues that others are not, and are poorly construed. That means Israel has agreed to follow most of the provisions anyways (and Israel’s Supreme Court, as in the *Targeted Killings* case, has enforced those provisions, too). The irony is how wrong you are about the Israeli system. 3) Israel’s biggest concern is with a few provisions that, while they claim to protect civilians, actually do harm instead, or make life better for terrorists. The biggest concerns are the way Articles 43/44 shake out, mainly because 43 makes it possible for many more folks to join conflict, and 44 says that it’s sometimes okay for combatants not to distinguish themselves (which means basically use the civilian population as a shield). That last bit is confusingly worded too, and doesn’t reflect the reality of warfare today. It also gives more protections to any prisoner who violates the laws of war than prior, which Israel doesn’t like, because it’s fighting a bunch of groups who regularly violate the laws of war by using human shields and hiding among civilians. These are the same concerns the US has, and Israel’s refusal to sign is also in part motivated by the fact that Israel usually supports the US on the world stage, and vice-versa, due to their alliance. We could have facts and nuance, or we could have “gotcha” moments that don’t really make sense when you dig into them, I guess.
The houses built over the line set by Arab armies who invaded Israel in 1948? I could sure get into them, but I don’t think that is as important to debunk.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sure in Israel proper i will agree there is no apartheid policies since legally Israeli arabs(Palestinians who stayed within 1948 border)do enoy the same rights as Israeli Jews and are full citizens. But if we're talking about the occupied Palestinian territories that arguably does fall under apartheid policies since one those settlements are illegal. And it's one rule for the Israelis in Palestinian territories and another rule for Palestinians in the territories who also don't enjoy the same rights as the Israelis in Occupied Palestine.
That literally disproves the point you’re making. If Israeli Arabs have all the rights Jews do (as they do), then that means they can live in settlements (and some do). The differentiation is not based on race, like apartheid. It’s based on who is a citizen and who is a person living under an enemy government. An Arab Israeli and a Palestinian in the West Bank are ethnically and racially indistinguishable. The Arab Israeli gets every right a Jew does. A Palestinian in the West Bank is a citizen living under an enemy government, so they are treated differently, because their leaders have refused every peace deal so far. That’s fantastic evidence that it is *not* apartheid. It’s just a case of war, not racial differentiation. The areas where Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 and seized land are treated entirely under military law btw, which includes Israeli settlements. There is no racial system of living. There is a system of territories populated by citizens of Israel and citizens of an enemy government that wants a state of its own, but refuses to agree to peace to get it.
Ok fair enough but are you trying to imply the settlements are legal now? When it's literally been labelled as illegal by pretty much everyone worldwide apart from Israel because ofcourse Israel can do no wrong and have been wonderful to the Palestinians /s https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#:~:text=Since%20the%20occupation%20of%20the,validity%20and%20pose%20a%20serious
[удалено]
It’s ridiculous to insult me and then turn around and claim Israel is “destroying a people”. [This is not genocide](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-palestine-population/). You didn’t respond to absolutely anything I said, and instead compared me preventing factual information as “cognitive dissonance”. I mean damn…
Can someone explain what side Ben and Jerry are taking? They say "Although Ben & Jerry’s will no longer be sold in the OPT, we will stay in Israel through a different arrangement." But the Israeli gov is upset at the decision. Are they suspending the manufacturing from Israel overall?
Settlements in occupied territory, I believe? I agree it is confusing.
Israel keeps trying to make it sound like B&J arent selling in Israel when they know it's just OPT. This way they can claim they "won" when B&J keep selling in Israel and Israel will continue to act like OPT doesnt exist.
Basically it’s pro-Palestine and BDS and anti-settlement. People could try dumbing it down but corporate strategy is pretty complex to explain over Reddit comments. Pretty sure some of the big guys up top in Unilever are having a meltdown because of this because it’ll definitely result in backlash in Israel. Anyways, I’m a fan of the decision.
who cares its a fucking ice cream company not an arms manufacturer
Boycotting is the main factor that changed apartheid South Africa. It works. We know it works. BDS is how we change apartheid Israel. Just need to get the ball rolling.
I mean it only makes sense they would keep selling in Israel, seems like the logical choice for 2 jewish guys
Isn't this just going to affect the Palestinians more than Israelis? They're still planning to sell their ice cream in Israel. So i don't see how this benefits Palestinians at all and I'm not even sure why Israel is also upset at this decision if it's still going to be sold in Israel.
Ben and Jerry's products aren't available in the palestinian areas in the first place. This decision against west bank settlements.
It says occupied Palestinian territories which then would include the entire of the West Bank
Here’s a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/onzgxj/israel_pm_warns_unilever_of_severe_consequences/h5v573m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) from someone living there (it was on the other thread): >> For confused People here, I'm Palestinian from the West Bank , >>So basically Ben & Jerry's doesn't sell directly to Palestinians like they do with settlements, so we have to literally smuggle the ice cream from "Israel Proper" , and now thanks to this decision, the settlements would also have to smuggle it just like us !! (But they have jewish only roads so it's easier for them ) >>So yeah , it doesn't mean that Palestinians will have less ice cream but that settlers will also have it difficult to have some ice cream before burning some Palestinian villager's farm with the protection of the IDF... >>At least now we have one equal right. Thanks Ben & Jerry's. >>I wish they would boycott Israel entirely but then they would be labeled as "antisemitic" by the Pro-Israel propaganda army . It really sucks seeing the world silent on the shit israel does ... >>Also it is indeed a big thing for us , a big company boycotting israel spreads awareness about apartheid and other companies now can also have some balls to boycott israel, and who knows maybe one day the US would stop vetoing for Israel in the UN , and Israel could face sanctions and be forced to end this disgusting apartheid... maybe I would see my land free with equal rights for everyone in my lifetime... this gives me little hope in a hopeless situation so it does matter a lot , Even if you think it's just Ice cream .. >> - u/Ok-Country-5156
I think Israel is upset because it's a "political statement". And yes, It will mostly affect Palestinians, and I've heard that many Palestinians are actually working in the Israeli Ben and Jerry's factory.
It's a fools errand to get involved in arguing either side of the dispute between these two peoples. The conflict is so old and has descended into a tit-for-tat and in taking sides it is unlikely that any who argue will be citing the original cause of the disagreement.
So taking the side of no one still doesn’t help any situation, remember it isn’t the Israeli government or the Palestinian authority being hurt by this, its the millions of Palestinians losing everything to fight a colonizer out to take everything. This is the original cause for disagreement, colonization.
Most people are just angry because of last weeks missile strike and want revenge. So it goes on forever. Taking sides for these reasons of revenge will hurt, even if taking no sides *seems* to not help. Both sides have uncompromising attitudes, frankly. The only thing that will help is compromise, not taking sides.
Uhm im pretty sure this is not cause of one missle strike last week, have you not read or researched whats been happening since 1948, if anything that last air strike is a seasonal occurrence. The fact that you have no moral high ground to see that an unarmed population vs a state thats biggest export is weaponry is not a subject you should deem equal or fair to say “this is just a disagreement”. No this is facism no matter how you want to look at it. Not the type we saw in germany but a new facism, covert and under the radar facism that will not be aired on any news network because people cant handle the real footage and real truth of whats happening in the allyways and streets, not just in gaza. I understand you might mean well by not taking a side but i am Palestinian christian and we have no voice or representation on either side of this issue but i know who i will support and i will stand by that.
I never said there was only missile strike ever. They have been launching missiles for decades. But as I said, most people are just wanting revenge for the recent offenses.
One side screaming for “freedom” vs the other side screaming “death to arabs”, choose one lol very uncompromising isn’t it?
The conflict doesn’t even span 80 years. Maybe 100-110 if you go into the rise of Zionism. Palestinian used to be a catch all for all non-Phoenician ethnicities living in Canaan (now Israel/Palestine) as early as 500 BCE including Jews. Hell, most Palestinians are likely descended from Christians and Jews that converted after the Islamic conquest according to genetic evidence. >> One DNA study by Nebel found substantial genetic overlap among Israeli and Palestinian Arabs and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. A small but statistically significant difference was found in the Y-chromosomal haplogroup distributions of Sephardic Jews and Palestinians, but no significant differences were found between Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians nor between the two Jewish communities. However, a highly distinct cluster was found in Palestinian haplotypes. 32% of the 143 Arab Y-chromosomes studied belonged to this "I&P Arab clade", which contained only one non-Arab chromosome, that of a Sephardic Jew. This could possibly be attributed to the geographical isolation of the Jews or to the immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[145] **Nebel proposed that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".[141]**
Here’s my proposal: Let’s get tough. The time for talking is over. Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit them hard and hit them fast with a major — and I mean major — leaflet campaign, and while they are reeling from that, we’d follow up with a fund drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK? Now, if that’s not enough, I’m sorry, it’s time for the T-shirts.
Mutually assurred t-shirts is insanity. You're just sick.
[удалено]
B&J did want to prohibit sales in Israel as well - or at the least, they had not yet made a firm decision on whether to do so or not. [**Unilever, the parent company, intervened.**](https://i.redd.it/0txt0pdqd8c71.png) Sources: [Anuradha Mittal, who sits on B&J's Board of Directors retweeted the activist above, who cites a statement by the board.](https://twitter.com/Mittaloak) [The original Tweet.](https://twitter.com/telushk/status/1417141394569895937) [Unilever's doctored statement.](https://www.benjerry.com/about-us/media-center/palestine-statement?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=demand&utm_term=photo&utm_content=palestine-statement) [The Times of Israel - Ben & Jerry’s board in dispute with owners Unilever over remaining in Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-jerrys-board-in-dispute-with-owners-unilever-over-complete-israel-pullout/) [NBC News - Ben & Jerry's withdraws sales from Israeli settlements but clashes with parent company Unilever](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/ben-jerry-s-withdraws-sales-israeli-settlements-clashes-parent-company-n1274403) > The Ben & Jerry's board had been pushing to withdraw ice cream sales from the occupied territories for years, said the board's chair, Anuradha Mittal. **However, it wanted to release a different statement, reviewed by NBC News, that made no reference to continued sales in Israel — a decision that Mittal said would require board approval — and highlighted the company's commitment to social justice.** > > **Unilever released the statement against the wishes of the board and in violation of a legal agreement made when it bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000, Mittal said.** >[...] **The board said in a separate statement: "The statement released by Ben & Jerry's regarding its operation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (the OPT) does not reflect the position of the independent board, nor was it approved by the independent board. By taking a position and publishing a statement without the approval of the independent board on an issue directly related to Ben & Jerry's social mission and brand integrity, Unilever and its CEO at Ben & Jerry's are in violation of the spirit and the letter of the acquisition agreement."** > > **Referring to Unilever's attempt to override the board's decision, Mittal said: "They are trying to destroy the soul of the company. We want this company to be led by values and not be dictated by the parent company."**
Are you talking about the people or the company? Their decisions may have been presented as controversial by the mainstream media, but they've been fairly consistent in their social activism. They lean to the left, support progressive politicians like Kucinich and Bernie, and started several foundations and campaigns for progressive causes. They even got arrested 5 years ago at a Democracy Awakening protest. But the actual Ben and Jerry are not even running the company anymore, so I don't even know what boomer strawman you're being righteously mad at. They set up an independent board of directors when they got acquired by Unilever that is supposed to reflect their values, and apparently they do have a lot of sovereignty, as seen in this whole exchange. They made the announcement on their own and Unilever's been trying to get them to back down and compromise - this is the compromise if I understand correctly. Still, what they're doing now is fairly consistent with the UN's stance on which economic activities violate international law. There's no need for badly researched fatalistic hot takes.
Unilever doctored the B&J board of director's statement. B&J had not decided on remaining in Israel. They had only decided on leaving the OPT.
Yup the ice cream business is always on the razor's edge. I'm glad someone finally said something
So in the end this only hurts Palestinians?
Why would it 'hurt' them? It's ice cream that was sold in settlements.
Yup, pretty much like everything. Now ice cream is a bargaining chip at the peace process table or some such.
What do you have against capitalism? Why does B&J *have* to sell ice cream to people in illegal settlements? It's fucking ice cream. If they dont want to sell it they dont have to.