Speaker A
Ben and Jerry's announced its decision to stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Were you surprised by the backlash that came after that?
Ben and Jerry's founders discuss their decision to stop sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories amid backlash and clarify their stance.
Key Takeaways
- Ben and Jerry's boycott targets only Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, not Israel as a whole.
- The founders face accusations of anti-Semitism but reject these claims based on their Jewish identity and values.
- The move is a symbolic policy stance rather than a financially motivated boycott.
- The company supports Israel's right to exist but opposes settlement policies that block peace efforts.
- Engagement and protest can coexist; complete withdrawal is not always the chosen approach.
Summary
- Ben and Jerry's decided to stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, sparking backlash.
- The founders were not surprised by the backlash but found it painful due to accusations of anti-Semitism.
- Both founders are Jewish and emphasize their support for Israel's right to exist while opposing certain government policies.
- The decision is framed as a policy stance, not a financial one, with minimal economic impact.
- They advocate for a two-state solution and criticize Israeli settlement policies that hinder peace.
- Ben and Jerry's has a history of supporting social movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
- Some U.S. states have divested from Unilever stock in response, which the founders believe is based on misinformation.
- They clarify that the company is not boycotting Israel entirely, only the occupied territories.
- The founders explain why they continue to sell in U.S. states with controversial policies, citing engagement over complete withdrawal.
- They emphasize the importance of protesting policies while maintaining involvement with the countries affected.
Chapters
- 00:00Announcement and Backlash
- 00:18Emotional Impact and Anti-Semitism Accusations
- 00:43Founders' Jewish Identity and Reactions
- 01:32Reasoning Behind the Decision
- 02:24Policy vs Financial Impact
- 02:58Social Activism and Company Growth
- 03:40State Divestments and Misinformation
- 03:58Clarifying the Boycott Scope
- 04:58Engagement vs Complete Withdrawal
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
No, uh, I wasn't surprised. And yet, when it happens, it's still, uh, painful.
Speaker A
You have some loyal customers who think that the move is anti-Semitic. Yeah, you're both Jewish men. How did it feel personally to be wrapped up in accusations of being anti-Semitic?
Speaker A
Totally fine. [Laughter] I mean, what, I'm anti-Jewish?
Speaker A
I mean, I'm a Jew. Well, my family is Jewish, my friends are Jewish. You know, I mean, I, I, I understand people [Music] being upset. It's a very emotional issue for a lot of people, and I totally understand it. It's a very painful issue.
Speaker A
For a lot of people. Can you help me understand why this decision came now? This conflict has been going on for years.
Speaker A
We're always in favor of a two-state solution. The policy of the Israeli government has been to endorse these settlements in
Speaker A
the occupied territories that keep on making it harder and harder to actually have a two-state solution. In what way do you both feel that, you know, withholding money or taking money from somewhere is a way to hold someone accountable? Well, in
Speaker A
terms of Israel, I don't view it as withholding money. It's just saying we don't want our ice cream sold in the occupied territories, right? But that affects the economy to an extent? Not much. You know, I mean, it
Speaker A
it's a drop, it's a drop in the bucket. So then is that really a big stand? It's not a financial stance, it's a policy stance. Ben and Jerry's publicly supported Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, but
Speaker A
over the years the company continues to sell more ice cream and thrive. But there's also new reporting that shows that states are taking financial action. Arizona is divesting over 140 million dollars in Unilever stock. New Jersey, 180 million.
Speaker A
Do you care about that? I do care because I think it's largely based on misinformation. I think—what do you mean? I think Ben and Jerry's and Unilever are being characterized as boycotting Israel [Music], which is not the case at all. It's not
Speaker A
boycotting Israel in any way. If you disagree with the Israeli government policy, why not just stop sales completely?
Speaker A
Well, I disagree with the U.S. policy. We couldn't stop selling in the U.S. I think it's fine to be involved with
Speaker A
a country, to be a citizen of a country, and to protest some of the country's actions. And that's essentially what we're doing. In terms of Israel, we hugely support Israel's right to exist, but we are against a particular policy.
Speaker A
You guys are big proponents of voting rights. Why do you still sell ice cream in Georgia? Texas abortion bans, why are you still selling there?
Topics:Ben and Jerry'sIsraeli-occupied Palestinian territoriesboycottanti-Semitism accusationstwo-state solutionIsraeli settlementsUnilever divestmentsocial activismpolitical stanceHBO Axios interview
![The Exhaustion Reversal [TRADING STRATEGY] — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0zc2jpsjXNM/maxresdefault.jpg)
