Ben & Jerry’s calls for a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza
Few brands take a clear position on the issue between Israel and Gaza, much to the frustration of many consumers. Chains such as McDonald’s and Starbucks have already been boycotted because of their (silent) support for Israel, as have fashion brands Chanel, Tommy Hilfiger and Ralph Lauren.
Incidentally, none of these boycotted brands have made official statements about their support for Israel. McDonald’s is in a blind panic over the boycott and is doing everything in its power to limit the damage — with mediocre success. They refer to ‘misinformation‘ in the media, without actually taking a position themselves. Things got even more heated at Starbucks: the official organization representing all their employees (Starbucks Workers United) posted a message of support for Palestine on X, much to the dismay of their employer. Starbucks consequently responded with a lawsuit against Starbucks Workers United.
Ben & Jerry’s position is clear
From the outset, Ben & Jerry’s has spoken out critically against all the violence perpetrated by Israel toward the Gaza Strip. That immediately caused quite a stir in Israel, but they are not losing any sleep over it; this week, they once again spoke out about the still-horrific situation there. They want a ceasefire, and they want it now—not a temporary one.
Anuradha Mittal of Ben & Jerry’s told the Financial Times: ‘Peace is a core value at Ben & Jerry’s. From Iraq to Ukraine, we have consistently stood up for these principles. That is why this is no different: we are calling for peace and a permanent ceasefire that takes effect immediately.’
It is rather awkward
A brave statement, especially considering that Ben & Jerry’s is owned by Unilever—and Unilever is not exactly happy with such statements. The two companies have clashed over this before: in 2021, Ben & Jerry’s wanted to withdraw its products from areas of Palestine that were occupied. Unilever quickly sold this Israeli arm of the company—and Ben & Jerry’s responded by suing Unilever. A very unusual lawsuit, since it is not often that a company sues its parent company. In 2022, a Unilever spokesperson said that the lawsuit had since been resolved between the two parties, without appearing in court.
Unilever vs Ben & Jerry’s
Yet the two companies still seem to be diametrically opposed. Just last month, Nelson Peltz resigned as a board member of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an organization that champions the human rights of the Jewish population. Peltz is also a member of Unilever’s board, so his views clash considerably with those of Ben & Jerry’s. The latter therefore explicitly states that its appeal for a ceasefire is completely separate from Unilever; it points out that Ben & Jerry’s is part of Unilever but operates fully autonomously, and that the brand’s board has ultimate responsibility for its social mission and for the brand’s integrity and vision.
Unilever has not yet responded to Ben & Jerry’s public statement. The ice cream is still available for purchase in Israel, although since the end of 2022 (when the contract expired), they have made the deliberate choice to no longer stock their products in OPTs (Occupied Palestinian Territory, recognized by the United Nations). They explain their reasons in detail on their website.
Also read:
