Background:

Global ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s has faced controversy over its stance on Israel, particularly in regard to its sales policies in the West Bank and the political views held by its founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. The situation has seen recent developments, drawing attention from various stakeholders.

Why It Matters:

The interplay between corporate social responsibility, consumer choice, and political activism places Ben & Jerry’s at the heart of an international discourse on the ethics of doing business in disputed territories. The company’s actions have prompted responses from advocacy groups, consumers, and even the corporate conglomerate that owns it, Unilever, illustrating the tension that can arise when business and politics collide.

Recent Developments:

The Israeli branch of Ben & Jerry’s has distanced itself from the parent company’s political stance. On October 7, the company’s anti-Israel rhetoric intensified, inciting reactions from significant figures like Nelson Peltz, a member of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s directorate and a Unilever board member. Peltz’s resignation from the center, allegedly due to a lack of agreement with a decision made without his knowledge, underscores the contentious nature of the issue.

The Roots of Controversy:

Ben & Jerry’s founders have historically opposed Israeli settlement policies, leading to a halt in product sales beyond the Green Line—territory considered occupied by international law. Following a legal struggle, sales resumed, but the friction between the belief systems of the company’s board and its Israeli subsidiary continues to generate conflict.

Corporate Conundrums:

When confronted with their decision to boycott settlements but continue selling in U.S. states with strict abortion laws, the founders were momentarily rendered speechless, highlighting the challenges businesses face when aligning their operations with their values.

Accusations and Resignations:

Anuradha Mittal, the CEO of Ben & Jerry’s, has been vocal in her criticism of Israel, which has been met with a harsh rebuttal from Nelson Peltz. Peltz labeled Mittal’s commentary as a justification of violence, leading to a series of actions, including his resignation and demands for review of potential conflicts of interest within Unilever’s board.

Local vs. Global:

Ben & Jerry’s Israel has declared its independence from the global brand’s political views, reiterating its commitment to Israel and disavowing the global board’s statements. The Israeli branch emphasizes its role as a patriotic entity, distinct from the global controversy.

Consumer Impact:

The issue extends to consumers, who are often left to navigate the complex landscape of purchasing decisions influenced by political convictions and loyalty to social causes. The case of Ben & Jerry’s demonstrates how choices made by companies can have far-reaching and unexpected consequences in the marketplace.

This story was first published on ynetnews.com.