FLAME’s Latest Public Relations Message Printable PDF
Protestors against Jew hatred in New York City made Ben & Jerry’s stores a prime target, based on the company’s embrace of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, which are outlawed in 35 states and many nations globally as anti-Semitic.
Ben & Jerry’s Bad Taste
The ice cream maker’s intent to ban sales and operations of its Israeli affiliate in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” is based on lies and bad faith toward Israel.
While Ben & Jerry’s board also wants to boycott the State of Israel entirely, it was stopped by its owner Unilever. Either way, the false claim that Israel occupies “Palestinian territories” is a malicious slander—attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state—itself an anti-Semitic act.
Anti-Israel boycotts are inherently anti-Semitic
What are the facts?
Ben & Jerry’s has informed its Israeli affiliate that it will cease their relationship because the affiliate refuses to stop selling its frozen confections in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank). According to international law and the Oslo Accords, signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Israelis have every right to create communities in these territories. Yet Ben & Jerry’s board chair doesn’t only object to Israel’s presence in its ancient homeland, she also considers Israel’s very existence a “catastrophe”—and she supports Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) actions, which many U.S. states have outlawed.
What are the “Occupied Palestinian Territories?” While radical groups use this phrase, it has no legal basis. Rather, it is a figment of anti-Israel propaganda. In fact, “occupation” is an international legal term originating from Article 42 of the Hague Convention—long-standing statements of the laws of war and war crimes. Occupation is defined under a category titled, “Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State.” In other words, an “occupation” can only be on the territory of another state. However, Judea and Samaria have never belonged to any state, and the Palestinians have never had a state or sovereignty anywhere. This term clearly does not apply.
Who owns Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)? Many believe Palestinian Arabs should have independence on their own land, and Israel has attempted for decades to negotiate a peace with them supporting this principle. However, both international law and treaties legally support the claims of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria. From the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to the 1922 Mandate for Palestine of the League of Nations—later adopted by the United Nations—these territories were designated as the “national home” for the Jewish people. The only other state to have control of this land was Jordan, which illegally conquered it during Israel’s War of Independence, but whom Israel drove out following Jordan’s unsuccessful invasion of Israel in 1967. While millions of Americans and Israelis support Palestinian independence, no international laws currently grant the Palestinians legal rights to a state.
What did Israel and the Palestinians agree on in the Oslo Accords? In 1993, with extensions in 1995, Israel and the Palestinians agreed on a framework for negotiating a peace treaty based on “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” This gave both Israel and the Palestinians various rights to govern and administer parts of Judea and Samaria. The agreement gives Israel complete security and administrative control over about 60% of these territories—where very few Palestinians live—including the right to create Jewish communities there. While Israel has made numerous offers of land for peace to the Palestinians—including most of Judea and Samaria—the Palestinians have turned down every offer. Since 2014, they have refused to negotiate further.
Why is Ben & Jerry’s boycott of Israel considered anti-Semitic? While many Americans support efforts to create a Palestinian state, the BDS movement does not support a “two-state solution.” In fact, BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti has freely admitted, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” Ben & Jerry’s board chair, Anuradha Mittal, also opposes Israel’s existence, referring to Israel’s 1948 birth as the “Nakba”—Arabic for “catastrophe.” Mittal is currently under IRS investigation for funneling large sums of Ben and Jerry’s grant money to her own rabidly anti-Israel Oakland Foundation—of which she is the only paid employee.
According to the globally accepted IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, denial of the Jewish people’s rights to self-determination is inherently anti-Semitic. No wonder BDS is currently outlawed by 35 U.S. states, many of which have initiated legal actions against Ben & Jerry’s and its owner Unilever.
Ben & Jerry’s directors should be held to account. Their boycott of Jewish communities in Israel’s biblical homeland is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-peace. Until the boycott ends, how could any supporter of the Jewish people—any supporter of Israel—enjoy the bitter taste of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream . . . or the purchase of any of 1,000-plus consumer products sold by its behemoth, UK-based owner Unilever?
