- Ben & Jerry’s supports Gaza ceasefire
- Previous attempts to halt sales
- Brand faces political controversy
Ben & Jerry’s, an ice cream manufacturer, has embraced the contentious discussions surrounding the conflict by endorsing a “permanent and immediate ceasefire” in Gaza.
This is consistent with the brand’s previous attempt to halt sales in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which caused a dispute with its owner, Unilever.
Starbucks and other prominent American corporations have been subject to international boycotts due to their perceived support for Israel.
Ben & Jerry’s board stated that the company advocated for harmony.
“For the past four decades, advancing peace has been an intrinsic aspect of Ben & Jerry’s mission,” stated Anuradha Mittal, the organization’s board chairman and the director of the Oakland Institute, a left-leaning think tank.
“Today, Ben & Jerry’s Board stands steadfast with that principle by calling for peace and a permanent and immediate ceasefire.”
Considerable discourse has ensued in the United States and other regions regarding the appropriate course of action for businesses and institutions in light of Hamas’ heinous assault on Israelis on October 7 and Israel’s military response in Gaza.
McDonald’s and Starbucks have attributed negative brand reputations to social media misinformation.
Frequently, even internal communications have been tense.
Although numerous American companies initially expressed strong disapproval of the Hamas atrocities, their stance has shifted in recent days as the conflict drags on.
On Tuesday, Unilever declined to provide a statement.
Ben & Jerry’s Peace Advocacy
According to a spokesperson for the company, Ben & Jerry’s issued the statement calling for a moratorium on behalf of its independent board. The company had no further comments.
The spokesperson continued, “Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of supporting peace and peace building.”
“It is astounding that while millions of people march globally, the corporate sector remains silent,” Ms Mittal told the FT, the first to publish the remarks.
A notable aspect of Ben & Jerry’s is its political activism.
When it was acquired by the behemoth Unilever in 2000, the organization maintained its right to an independent council to direct its social mission.
On numerous occasions, it has adopted left-leaning positions regarding LGBTQ+ rights and climate change.
Before the present outbreak of violence in 2021, Ben & Jerry’s controversy arose when the company expressed concern over the treatment of Palestinians.
It declared that it no longer wished for its ice cream to be sold in Israeli-illicitly occupied territories in Palestine, such as East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Prominent Jewish organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, issued calls for a boycott of “anti-semitic ice cream” in response to the admonishments issued by the Israeli government.
“Don’t miss out! Grab your free shares of Webull UK today!”
Political Fallout for Ben & Jerry’s
In response, politicians in several U.S. states, North Carolina being the most recent, initiated the withdrawal of state pensions and other financial resources from Unilever.
Despite Ben & Jerry’s objections, Unilever ultimately divested the Israeli branch to a local operator through a settlement that permitted the continuation of sales under distinct branding.
In December, Ms. Mittal expressed her stance regarding the Gaza conflict and criticized Israel’s actions in the region. The incident incited the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to once more express its disapproval of Ben & Jerry’s on social media.
The contentious post, which was reportedly removed in response to a request from the Wall Street Journal, featured an image of Ms Mittal and incited personal online harassment directed at her.
Later, activist investor and Unilever board member Nelson Peltz tendered his resignation from the position at the centre.
Buyout store Oakley Steers win £500m auto repair shop contract
