JERUSALEM: Unilever this week sold its Ben & Jerry’s ice cream business in Israel to its local licensee for an undisclosed sum, aiming to smooth over a potentially damaging diplomatic row over the company’s political stance.
The deal comes after the US ice cream brand announced last year it would stop marketing products in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, saying that selling there was “inconsistent” with its values. Under the new arrangement Ben & Jerry’s ice cream will be available to all consumers in Israel and the occupied West Bank.
Ben & Jerry’s has said it does “not agree” with the deal made by the parent company.
The episode highlighted the challenges facing consumer brands taking a stand on Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinians, such as San Francisco-based Airbnb, which in 2019 reversed its decision to delist Israeli settlements.
The international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement seeks to pressure Israel to abide by international law in its treatment of the Palestinians. Israel says such boycotts are discriminatory and anti-Semitic.
On Wednesday, Israel’s foreign ministry called the Ben & Jerry’s deal “a huge victory.”
“We will fight delegitimization and the BDS campaign in every arena, whether in the public square, in the economic sphere or in the moral realm,” Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said in a statement.
Last year, Israel condemned the sales boycott as “morally wrong” and said Unilever would face “severe consequences.” The consumer goods giant defended Ben & Jerry’s autonomy, but said it was “fully committed” to Israel and would find a solution by the end of this year.
Unilever had said previously it did not support the BDS movement, and reiterated that stance in a statement on Wednesday.
The new owner is the brand’s long-time Israeli ice cream licensee Avi Zinger, owner of American Quality Products. Zinger had sued Ben & Jerry’s after its decision in the West Bank, saying the company illegally severed their 34-year relationship.
“The new arrangement means Ben & Jerry’s will be sold under its Hebrew and Arabic names throughout Israel and the West Bank under the full ownership of its current licensee,” Unilever said.
A representative for the Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s said the company does not agree with Unilever’s announcement and will no longer profit from Ben & Jerry’s in Israel.
“We continue to believe it is inconsistent with Ben & Jerry’s values for our ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the representative told Reuters.
Pension officials in at least six US states had restricted or sold Unilever stock or bonds to protest the Ben & Jerry’s decision, among them New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Texas State Comptroller Glenn Hegar, and Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee. Representatives for all three told Reuters on Wednesday they would review Unilever’s move.
Billionaire activist investor Nelson Peltz, who is joining the board of Unilever next month, was involved in the discussions to bring about the resolution, said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a human rights organization that supported the deal. Peltz is the chairman of the center’s board of governors.
Peltz met with Unilever CEO Alan Jope in September before Trian Partners, the investment fund Peltz runs, bought any shares, to discuss the situation, a person familiar with the matter said.
Trian Partners commended the new arrangement in a statement, saying that “respect and tolerance have prevailed.”
Ben & Jerry’s and its independent board maintained the right to decide on its social mission when it was bought by Unilever in 2000. But Unilever said it “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement.”
Israel captured the West Bank, part of the territory Palestinians want for an independent state, in a 1967 Middle East war. Most countries consider Israeli settlements on Palestinian land to be illegal. Israel disputes this.
“The return of Ben and Jerry’s to Israeli settlements, which were built on Palestinian land, exposes it to international legal accountability and its name will be on the United Nations blacklist of companies operating in settlements,” The Palestine Liberation Organization’s Wasel Abu Yussef told Reuters.
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, said the deal sought to undermine the “principled decision” to stop selling the ice cream in Israeli settlements.
“What comes next may look and taste similar, but, without Ben & Jerry’s recognized social justice values, it’s just a pint of ice cream,” he said in a statement.
Ben & Jerry’s Jewish founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, no longer manage the brand but are well known for their commitment to social justice. The company has recently expressed strong support for the Black Lives Matter movement, LGBTQ+ rights and electoral campaign finance reform.
Unilever sells Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business to defuse BDS row
https://arab.news/pnk9b
Unilever sells Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business to defuse BDS row
- Ice cream brand said it does “not agree” with the deal made by the parent company
Gaza ceasefire enters phase two despite unresolved issues
- Under the second phase, Gaza is to be administered by a 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee operating under the supervision of a so-called “Board of Peace,” to be chaired by Trump
JERUSALEM: A US-backed plan to end the war in Gaza has entered its second phase despite unresolved disputes between Israel and Hamas over alleged ceasefire violations and issues unaddressed in the first stage.
The most contentious questions remain Hamas’s refusal to publicly commit to full disarmament, a non-negotiable demand from Israel, and Israel’s lack of clarity over whether it will fully withdraw its forces from Gaza.
The creation of a Palestinian technocratic committee, announced on Wednesday, is intended to manage day-to-day governance in post-war Gaza, but it leaves unresolved broader political and security questions.
Below is a breakdown of developments from phase one to the newly launched second stage.
Gains and gaps in phase one
The first phase of the plan, part of a 20-point proposal unveiled by US President Donald Trump, began on October 10 and aimed primarily to stop the fighting in the Gaza Strip, allow in aid and secure the return of all remaining living and deceased hostages held by Hamas and allied Palestinian militant groups.
All hostages have since been returned, except for the remains of one Israeli, Ran Gvili.
Israel has accused Hamas of delaying the handover of Gvili’s body, while Hamas has said widespread destruction in Gaza made locating the remains difficult.
Gvili’s family had urged mediators to delay the transition to phase two.
“Moving on breaks my heart. Have we given up? Ran did not give up on anyone,” his sister, Shira Gvili, said after mediators announced the move.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said efforts to recover Gvili’s remains would continue but has not publicly commented on the launch of phase two.
Hamas has accused Israel of repeated ceasefire violations, including air strikes, firing on civilians and advancing the so-called “Yellow Line,” an informal boundary separating areas under Israeli military control from those under Hamas authority.
Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry said Israeli forces had killed 451 people since the ceasefire took effect.
Israel’s military said it had targeted suspected militants who crossed into restricted zones near the Yellow Line, adding that three Israeli soldiers were also killed by militants during the same period.
Aid agencies say Israel has not allowed the volume of humanitarian assistance envisaged under phase one, a claim Israel rejects.
Gaza, whose borders and access points remain under Israeli control, continues to face severe shortages of food, clean water, medicine and fuel.
Israel and the United Nations have repeatedly disputed figures on the number of aid trucks permitted to enter the Palestinian territory.
Disarmament, governance in phase two
Under the second phase, Gaza is to be administered by a 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee operating under the supervision of a so-called “Board of Peace,” to be chaired by Trump.
“The ball is now in the court of the mediators, the American guarantor and the international community to empower the committee,” Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas leader, said in a statement on Thursday.
Trump on Thursday announced the board of peace had been formed and its members would be announced “shortly.”
Mediators Egypt, Turkiye and Qatar said Ali Shaath, a former deputy minister in the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, had been appointed to lead the committee.
Later on Thursday, Egyptian state television reported that all members of the committee had “arrived in Egypt and begun their meetings in preparation for entering the territory.”
Al-Qahera News, which is close to Egypt’s state intelligence services, said the members’ arrival followed US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff’s announcement on Wednesday “of the start of the second phase and what was agreed upon at the meeting of Palestinian factions in Cairo yesterday.”
Shaath, in a recent interview, said the committee would rely on “brains rather than weapons” and would not coordinate with armed groups.
On Wednesday, Witkoff said phase two aims for the “full demilitarization and reconstruction of Gaza,” including the disarmament of all unauthorized armed factions.
Witkoff said Washington expected Hamas to fulfil its remaining obligations, including the return of Gvili’s body, warning that failure to do so would bring “serious consequences.”
The plan also calls for the deployment of an International Stabilization Force to help secure Gaza and train vetted Palestinian police units.
For Palestinians, the central issue remains Israel’s full military withdrawal from Gaza — a step included in the framework but for which no detailed timetable has been announced.
With fundamental disagreements persisting over disarmament, withdrawal and governance, diplomats say the success of phase two will depend on sustained pressure from mediators and whether both sides are willing — or able — to move beyond long-standing red lines.
