Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Intifada
By: Eric Flamm
Tags: Portland Oregon, Ice Cream, Israel, Jewish, Palestine

Is the BDS movement an actual threat to Israel or is this just rocket fuel for conservatives in Israel and super Israel patriots in the US?

Recently the ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s announced it will no longer sell its products in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. The resulting reactions of the right-wing Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennet, and the usual suspects in US Jewish community, all agreed that Ben & Jerry’s had branded itself “anti-Israel ice cream.”

For those of us who are engaged in the issue of Israel/Palestine this was a remarkable moment, for it brought into stark relief one important question — is the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement an actual threat to Israel or is this just rocket fuel for conservatives in Israel and super Israel patriots in the US? Why has the Israeli government chosen to elevate this seemingly trivial economic decision to such lofty heights?

There is always the fear that what starts with Ben & Jerry’s might not end there. If one company boycotts Israeli settlements, what would stop others from doing the same?

To be clear, Ben & Jerry’s action is not in keeping with the global BDS movement as the company still plans to sell ice cream within Israel — the BDS movement calls for complete commercial disengagement. One reason this incident has reached such epic proportions is that it sparks debate about the role of the BDS movement in bringing change.

Jewish federations and other US-based organizations fundraise like crazy citing “delegitimization of Israel” caused by the global BDS movement; they see BDS as a tsunami of anti-Semitism poised to sweep away everything decent and holy. In Israel, the shaky new government apparently needs to show the electorate it is tough on any decision it views as discriminatory towards West Bank settlers.

Over the last twenty years the BDS movement had almost no victories in slowing the expansion of the Israeli economy, which grew about eightfold. Yet, if one were to believe US right-wing propaganda, the BDS movement is quickly gaining momentum and is widespread on every college campus.

Part of the reason Israel’s making this a cause cé​lè​bre has been a disaster is the growing divergence between how the world sees Israel and how it sees itself. The international community continues to view the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories but as far as many Israelis are concerned, there is only an Israel that extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

By ending its business in the occupied territories, Ben & Jerry’s has effectively refused to profit from or legitimize the status quo in the region, a status quo that has worked out quite well for Israel and which it is deeply invested in protecting. The company has also made clear that it will continue to sell ice cream only within Israel’s democratic borders.

The Song Remains the Same

Here in Portland the head of the local federation weighed in on the issue without much insight or surprise. In his weekly newsletter he pointed out that Ben & Jerry’s does not boycott other, perhaps more reprehensible, countries such as Serbia or Malaysia in a robust fit of sanctimonious whataboutism.

Unsaid was the reasoning that no Jewish discomfort or security concerns could ever be subservient to Palestinian suffering. Unspoken was the notion that West Bank settlers might have to drive across the Green Line to buy a pint of Chunky Monkey — something worse than the Palestinians having to live under martial law.

Jewish federations rely on older people in the philanthropic moment of their lives and who lean right on Israel. The failure of our federation to have more nuanced thinking about this reflects the overt influence donors have on this system and how federations neglect the communities they purport to serve.

The Genie is Out of the Bottle

The Ben & Jerry’s decision also represents another significant step in the progression of the Israel/Palestine issue as it relates to the political movements of the last two years when more people began to view the conflict through the lens of racial justice. Instead of endless PowerPoints and jargon to bring people up to speed, the situation can now be described as apartheid, a term used by NGOs Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, an organization that documents human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza.

Other changes in American attitudes include members of Congress who support BDS, a growing call for Israel to account for how it spends US aid — with the idea that it is not used to further occupation — and growing frustration with consecutive Israeli governments who refuse to address Palestinian human rights concerns. Far from finding a political solution to the issue of Palestinians living under occupation, the Israeli government is locked on either annexing the West Bank or maintaining the status quo — a de facto annexation.

Although Ben & Jerry’s may be forced to walk back its bold initiative, the genie is out of the bottle about Israel and the Palestinian territories it occupies. An interesting situation will be how the courts of 35 states which have anti-BDS laws will rule on the ice cream maker’s decision. Will Americans gladly give up their constitutional rights for Israeli settlers? As more companies include corporate responsibility into business plans there will surely be more challenges to these laws. The era of giving Israel a pass on Palestinian human rights until it can figure out its internal politics is coming to an end.

Last year I had the chance to ask a rabbi with a national platform if it ever was permissible to criticize Israeli government policy. He said it was okay only if one did it with “love” — which in his practice turned out never to impose any consequences for Israel. This endless forbearance for a growing list of atrocities will not hold forever. I look forward to a day when the organized Jewish community considers that ending the occupation is a Jewish value.