- A woman said Ben & Jerry’s server was upset she didn’t tip for a cone Insider
- Bartender filmed chucking customers out of a bar for not tipping workers 40% Daily Mail
- Ben & Jerry’s Cashier Throws A Scene After Woman Refuses To Leave Them A Tip, Gets Reality Checked By The Internet Bored Panda
- ‘It’s all bad for you’: Bartender shares how she deals with customers who ask ‘how many calories’ are in their drinks The Daily Dot
- I’m a bartender – here’s what I say to people worried about calories Daily Mail
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: Jerrys
Ben & Jerry’s sues Unilever to block sale of Israeli business
The Vermont-based ice cream maker filed a complaint Tuesday in the US District Court in New York, where it sought an injunction against Unilever (UL) “to protect the brand and social integrity Ben & Jerry’s has spent decades building.”
Ben & Jerry’s has been doing business in Israel since 1987, but in recent years it had come under pressure for selling in West Bank settlements, considered illegal under international law. In July 2021, it announced it would stop selling in the West Bank altogether.
That triggered a dispute with its longtime distributor in Israel, American Quality Products (AQP), which sued Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever in March, arguing that they were “unlawfully terminating its 34-year business relationship in order to boycott Israel.”
Unilever, one of the world’s top sellers of consumer goods including Dove soap and Magnum ice cream, tried to draw a line under the controversy with its announcement last week that it had sold Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business for an undisclosed amount to AQP.
The retail giant said that going forward, Ben & Jerry’s would be sold under its Hebrew and Arabic names throughout Israel and the West Bank.
But that decision to sell to AQP took the board of Ben & Jerry’s by surprise, according to its court filing, which said that its chair had been “stunned” to hear the news.
Since 2021, Ben & Jerry’s has been fiercely opposed to the sale of its products in the West Bank, saying that it would be “inconsistent with” the brand.
In its complaint Tuesday, it noted that its brand values are legally overseen by an independent board of directors under a 2000 agreement with Unilever.
The board decided to pursue legal action last week at a meeting where five directors voted to authorize litigation, and two appointees from Unilever dissented, Ben & Jerry’s said.
In a statement last week, Unilever acknowledged that “Ben & Jerry’s and its independent board were granted rights to take decisions about its social mission.”
But it maintained that the parent company “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions, and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement.”
In a new statement Wednesday, a Unilever spokesperson reiterated that it “had the right to enter this arrangement.”
“The deal has already closed,” the representative said, adding that it would not comment on pending litigation.
In its statement last week, Unilever said that it had conducted a review of its business there “over several months, including with the Israeli government.”
“Unilever has used the opportunity of the past year to listen to perspectives on this complex and sensitive matter and believes this is the best outcome for Ben & Jerry’s in Israel,” it added.
— Jordan Valinsky contributed to this report.
Ben & Jerry’s sues parent company Unilever over sale of Israeli business
A tub of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, manufactured by Unilever Plc.
Chris Ratcliffe | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Ben & Jerry’s is suing parent company Unilever to stop the sale of its Israeli business to a local licensee, a move the consumer products giant said would keep the ice cream products available in Israel and its occupied territories.
Ben & Jerry’s said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York Tuesday that Unilever’s decision was made without the approval of its independent board, which has the primary responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of its brand’s name.
A judge on Tuesday denied Ben & Jerry’s application for a temporary restraining order but ordered Unilever to show cause by July 14 for why a preliminary injunction should not be issued.
Representatives for Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The suit marks the latest development in a controversy that was set off last year when Ben & Jerry’s said it would stop sales in the West Bank territory occupied by Israel since the Six Day war in 1967.
Israel’s government sees the occupied territories as part of its economy and any efforts to boycott business in the areas are seen as applying to the country. Stopping sales of the ice cream in the occupied territories would have ended sales throughout Israel.
In its suit, Ben & Jerry’s said that its brand is “synonymous with social activism” and that as part of its deal to be acquired by Unilever in 2000, it had reserved the “primary responsibility for safeguarding the integrity” of the Ben & Jerry’s brand through its independent board.
It said that Unilever had publicly recognized the brand’s right to make decisions about its social mission. But then last week, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever “abruptly reversed course.”
Unilever announced last week that it sold the Israeli branch of its Ben & Jerry’s business to American Quality Products, which licenses the ice cream products in Israel. American Quality said it would continue selling Ben & Jerry’s under Hebrew and Arabic names throughout Israel and its occupied territories.
Despite the right of Ben & Jerry’s independent board to make decisions about the brand’s social mission, Unilever said in announcing the sale that it had the right to enter into the agreement because it had reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions.
After Unilever announced the sale, Ben & Jerry’s said in its lawsuit that its board held a special meeting on Friday and voted to sue over the decision.
In an interview with CNBC after last week’s move by Unilever the Israeli licensor, Avi Zinger of American Quality Products, said any potential lawsuit would be “between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s. I already have a deal.”
— CNBC’s Candice Choi contributed to this report.
Ben & Jerry’s sues parent company in bid to block deal enabling sales at settlements
NEW YORK — Ben & Jerry’s filed a US federal lawsuit on Tuesday against its parent company, seeking to block an agreement with an Israeli firm that would allow sales of its product in the West Bank, as the legal battle over the ice cream maker’s attempted boycott of settlements continued.
The Vermont-based firm filed the civil suit in the US Southern District Court of New York against Conopco, the main US branch of Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s.
The lawsuit argues that Unilever breached its acquisition deal with Ben & Jerry’s by announcing an agreement last week with the Israeli vendor that produces and distributes the ice cream in the country to continue sales in the West Bank, after the Ben & Jerry’s board said it was halting sales in “occupied Palestinian territory” last year.
Unilever reached an agreement with Avi Zinger, the owner of Ben & Jerry’s Israel, and his company American Quality Products (AQP), giving it permanent independence to continue sales in Israel and the West Bank with the Ben & Jerry’s logos in Hebrew and Arabic, but not English. The boycott was set to come into effect at the end of 2022, when Ben & Jerry’s contracts with Zinger were due to expire.
Ben & Jerry’s is seeking an injunction to prevent the move, as well as damages from the agreement and all profits Unilever makes from it. Ben & Jerry’s had previously said it would no longer profit from sales in Israel.
The court denied a Ben & Jerry’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Unilever’s agreement with Zinger.
In response to the lawsuit, Unilever told The Times of Israel it “had the right to enter this arrangement. The deal has already closed. We do not comment on pending litigation.”
Avi Zinger, Israeli manufacturer and distributor of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream (YouTube screenshot)
Alyza D. Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which represents Zinger and AQP, said in response, “It’s a done deal. Unilever chose the morally correct, socially just and principled path when it ensured that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream would always continue to be produced and sold in Israel and the West Bank.”
“Avi Zinger stands arm in arm with Unilever and commends Unilever’s decision to forcefully defend its agreement with him,” Lewin told The Times of Israel.
Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s have been out of sync on the settlement boycott since the start and seemed to have been increasingly at odds. Tuesday’s legal filing appeared to be the first direct legal dispute between the two sides.
The lawsuit against Conopco and Unilever seeks to block the transfer of Ben & Jerry’s branding to the Israeli company and prevent sales in the West Bank without approval from the ice cream company, and to dissolve the agreement Unilever made with Zinger. Unilever mostly conducts its US business through Conopco, which is wholly owned by Unilever United States. The lawsuit also refers to the defendant as Unilever. It wasn’t immediately clear why Ben & Jerry’s filed the lawsuit against Conopco, and not against Unilever US, although it may have been for reasons related to the case’s jurisdiction.
Pro-Israel demonstrators protest against Ben and Jerry’s over its boycott of the West Bank, and against antisemitism, in Manhattan, New York City, on August 12, 2021. (Luke Tress/Flash90)
The dispute focuses on the autonomy of the Ben & Jerry’s board and its commitment to its “core values” and social mission, which the company says is integral to its identity and business success. Ben & Jerry’s says its owners violated agreements related to its board and social commitments by transferring the brand to the Israeli branch.
When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, it granted the board autonomy “for safeguarding the integrity of the essential elements of the Ben & Jerry’s brand-name,” the lawsuit said. The Ben & Jerry’s board made the West Bank boycott announcement independently of Unilever. The UK-based multinational wholly owns Ben & Jerry’s and has some authority over financial and operational matters, but the ice cream maker retained its independence on other issues in the acquisition agreement.
Unilever’s decision to go against the Ben & Jerry’s board and allow sales in the West Bank violated their merger agreement, the lawsuit alleges, calling it an attempt to “usurp the Board’s contractual authority and nullify its previous decision prohibiting the sale of Ben & Jerry’s products in the West Bank.” It also said transferring the logos to the Israeli company in a unilateral decision was a violation of its merger agreement.
The lawsuit noted that Unilever said it “recognized the right” of Ben & Jerry’s to make decisions about its “social missions” after the settlement boycott was announced last year, but “abruptly reversed course” with the agreement last week, telling the board about it on June 23, shortly before it was made public.
“Stunned, the Chair of the Independent Board attempted to engage in discussions with Unilever, requesting a copy of the transfer agreement and time for the Independent Board to review. She received neither,” the lawsuit said.
“Unilever’s unilateral decision was made without the consent of Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board of Directors, the entity contractually empowered with protecting Ben & Jerry’s brand,” the lawsuit said. It seeks an injunction restraining Unilever from “violating the express terms” of their merger agreement to “preserve the status quo and protect the brand and social integrity Ben & Jerry’s has spent decades building.”
The board decided to file litigation against the move on Friday in a 5-2 decision, with its two Unilever appointees dissenting.
The lawsuit refers to sales in the West Bank only and does not refer specifically to settlements, Jerusalem or sales in Israel at any point.
Pedestrians walk on Church St., past the Ben & Jerry’s shop, in Burlington, Vermont, March 11, 2020. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Ben & Jerry’s said its progressive ethos is integral to the company and its business success, tracing its “social mission” back to its Jewish founders, who decided to make the business “more than just an ice-cream company” in the early 1980s.
“As a result of its decades of advocacy, Ben & Jerry’s had become the ‘gold standard’ for corporate activism,” the lawsuit said, submitting positive media coverage of its advocacy as evidence.
The lawsuit was signed by Anuradha Mittal, the chair of the Ben & Jerry’s board.
Ben Cohen, one of the company founders, submitted a statement saying that he supported the lawsuit and the West Bank boycott, and believed the Unilever decision violated the acquisition agreement. Jerry Greenfield, the other co-founder, included a statement in support of Ben & Jerry’s social mission, without addressing the West Bank dispute.
The lawsuit said the board started receiving complaints about sales in the West Bank in 2013 and began looking into the issue, and that its decision to withdraw from the area was the result of a 2019 fact-finding mission to Israel and the West Bank. It did not say why the decision was not announced until 2021. Ben & Jerry’s was under heavy pressure from anti-Israel activists to cut sales to Israel at the time due to the war between Israel and Gaza terror groups.
Zinger and his company refused to comply. Their license to sell the ice cream was set to expire at the end of 2022, meaning the boycott had not yet come into effect.
Ben & Jerry’s announcement of the boycott triggered massive blowback for Unilever. A number of US states enacted laws barring Israel boycotts, pulling close to a billion dollars from Unilever, and the company’s value plummeted over $20 billion in the months after the boycott announcement, at a time when the market was on the rise. Over 30 states have anti-boycott legislation and 12 state attorneys general and treasurers from seven states also called on Unilever to reconsider the boycott.
Pro-Israel demonstrators protest against Ben & Jerry’s over its boycott of the West Bank, and against antisemitism, in Manhattan, New York City, on August 12, 2021. (Luke Tress/Flash90)
Ben & Jerry’s is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever, despite its board’s independence on some matters. Unilever is a UK-based conglomerate and one of the largest consumer goods companies in the world, with some 400 brands and a market value of around $116 billion.
Ben & Jerry’s Israel and Zinger had sued Unilever in US federal court in New Jersey, saying the company was violating US and Israeli laws and illegally terminating their business relationship. The agreement announced last week appeared to have resolved the dispute, until Tuesday’s court filings.
Under the terms of his deal with Unilever, Zinger has independence to produce and sell Ben & Jerry’s products in Israel and the West Bank in perpetuity. The monetary terms of the arrangement were kept confidential.
Israel and its supporters hailed the agreement as a major victory against the boycott movement against Israel. Ben & Jerry’s did not explicitly endorse the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting the entire Jewish state, but its settlement boycott has been lumped in with the movement by activists on both sides and the BDS movement got on board with its boycott.
The decision sparked uproar in Israel and among some US Jewish groups, many of whom called it antisemitic, since the company has no boycotts against any other area of the world.
Critics of the attempted West Bank boycott note that Ben & Jerry’s allows its products to be sold in states with atrocious human rights records, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and China. The company has not taken action regarding other disputed territories including Tibet, Crimea, Western Sahara and Kashmir.
FB.Event.subscribe('comment.create', function (response) { comment_counter++; if(comment_counter == 2){ jQuery.ajax({ type: "POST", url: "/wp-content/themes/rgb/functions/facebook.php", data: { p: "2793046", c: response.commentID, a: "add" } }); comment_counter = 0; } }); FB.Event.subscribe('comment.remove', function (response) { jQuery.ajax({ type: "POST", url: "/wp-content/themes/rgb/functions/facebook.php", data: { p: "2793046", c: response.commentID, a: "rem" } }); });
};
(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;}
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js";
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Read original article here
Liz Sheridan, who played Jerry’s mother on Seinfeld, dies at 93 | Seinfeld
Jerry Seinfeld has paid tribute to the “nicest TV mom” Liz Sheridan, who has died aged 93.
The US comedian, who starred alongside Sheridan in his eponymous sitcom Seinfeld, said he was lucky to have known the actress.
Sheridan died in her sleep from natural causes, five days after her birthday on 10 April, her friend and long-time representative Amanda Hendon said.
She played Seinfeld’s doting mother Helen in the popular comedy.
“Liz was always the sweetest, nicest TV mom a son could wish for,” Seinfeld wrote on Twitter, sharing a picture of the pair.
Liz was always the sweetest, nicest TV mom a son could wish for. Every time she came on our show it was the coziest feeling for me. So lucky to have known her. pic.twitter.com/ae9TDHQILU
— Jerry Seinfeld (@JerrySeinfeld) April 15, 2022
n”,”url”:”https://twitter.com/JerrySeinfeld/status/1515081582406733826″,”id”:”1515081582406733826″,”hasMedia”:false,”role”:”inline”,”isThirdPartyTracking”:false,”source”:”Twitter”,”elementId”:”1f78c7e3-ea33-4fe7-9491-41934bda3f37″}}”>
Liz was always the sweetest, nicest TV mom a son could wish for. Every time she came on our show it was the coziest feeling for me. So lucky to have known her. pic.twitter.com/ae9TDHQILU
— Jerry Seinfeld (@JerrySeinfeld) April 15, 2022
“Every time she came on our show it was the coziest feeling for me. So lucky to have known her.”
Sheridan died two weeks after Estelle Harris, who played George’s mother on the show.
As well as her famous role in Seinfeld, Sheridan also had a prolific stage career.
She appeared on Broadway in plays and musicals during the 1970s including Happy End with Meryl Streep and Ballroom.
Israel launches maximum pressure campaign against Ben & Jerry’s
The Israeli government has formed a special task force to pressure Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and its parent company Unilever to reverse their decision to boycott Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israeli officials tell me.
Why it matters: The Israeli government is concerned the move by Ben & Jerry’s will encourage other international companies to take similar steps to differentiate between Israel and the West Bank settlements. A classified Foreign Ministry cable, seen by Axios, makes clear the government wants to send a message.
Driving the news: Last week, Ben & Jerry’s announced that from January 2023 they will no longer allow their Israeli franchisee to market their ice cream in the settlements, but will continue to sell it within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
- That decision from the company, which has taken political positions on a range of issues, came after almost a decade of pressure from pro-Palestinian activists. In the past, the Israeli government managed to convince Ben & Jerry’s not to take such steps.
- But after the recent fighting in Gaza, the pressure on the company increased. In the last two weeks, it became clear that a decision to boycott the settlements was imminent.
- The Israeli government tried to press Unilever to stop Ben & Jerry’s from making that decision, but Unilever said the company had the right to take such steps as part of its corporate responsibility and social justice policy.
Behind the scenes: On July 22, the Israeli Foreign Ministry sent a classified cable to all Israeli diplomatic missions in North America and Europe ordering them to start a pressure campaign against Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever in order to convince them to negotiate.
- Israeli diplomats were instructed to encourage Jewish organizations, pro-Israel advocacy groups and evangelical communities to organize demonstrations in front of Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever offices and put pressure on investors and distributors for both companies.
- The Foreign Ministry also asked the diplomats to push for public statements condemning the companies and to “encourage public protests in the media and directly with key executives in both companies.” The diplomats were also instructed to echo those protests on social media for maximum visibility.
- The Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israeli Consulates around the U.S. were asked to push for the activation of anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) legislation in several states and to engage with governors, mayors, members of Congress and state officials like attorneys general.
What they’re saying: “We need to make use of the 18 months that are left until the decision comes into force and try to change it. We want to create long-term pressure on Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s by consumers, politicians, and in the press and social media in order to lead to a dialogue with the companies,” the cable said.
- It added that Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever “caved and cooperated with the BDS movement” which it claimed was partially “motivated by antisemitism.” The cable also said the companies’ decision was “hypocritical, goes against the values of corporate responsibility and smells like extreme cancel culture.”
Worth noting: The statement from Ben & Jerry’s didn’t mention BDS, but said it was “inconsistent with our values” to sell ice cream in “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
What’s next: The Israeli Foreign Ministry instructed diplomats to immediately report any new information about efforts by BDS activists to press more companies to follow Ben & Jerry’s.
Cuomo, who once said New York will boycott those who boycott Israel, called out for silence on Ben & Jerry’s
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared, “If you boycott Israel, New York State will boycott you,” and signed an executive order calling for divestment from companies that boycott the Jewish state – but that was in 2016 and he is now being called upon to follow through.
Cuomo, who delivered a public address and authored a Washington Post op-ed to announce the 2016 order, has been silent ever since Ben & Jerry’s announced that it was going to cease selling its products in the West Bank due to the presence of Jewish settlements in the territory.
TEXAS CONSIDERS BANNING BEN & JERRY’S OVER ISRAEL BOYCOTT
“I call on him to enforce his order that bans the State of New York from doing business with companies that engage in the anti-Semitic BDS movement,” Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., told the New York Post in reference to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement that targets Israel.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., pointed to the increase of anti-Semitic incidents in New York, telling the newspaper that “it’s critically important for the state to reinforce its position and show support for members of our Jewish community.”
Republicans are not the only ones calling on Cuomo to take action. Former Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind posted a video statement to Twitter on Sunday in which he implored Cuomo to follow through on his 2016 order.
“Where is the governor now to act while this boycott is going on? Why is the governor not speaking out?” Hikind asked.
“Governor Cuomo, you got a lot of attention for doing the right thing in 2016,” Hikind added. “Now is your opportunity to act against the anti-Semitic BDS movement directed against the Jewish people. We are waiting to hear from you.”
GOP LAWMAKERS PUSH BACK AGAINST BEN & JERRY’S AFTER WEST BANK BOYCOTT ANNOUNCEMENT
The BDS initiative is aimed at trying to harm Israel’s economy and public image by getting companies and organizations to cease doing business there. Ben & Jerry’s stated that while it will not sell its ice cream in the West Bank, also known as Judea and Samaria, it will still do business in Israel itself.
The Palestinian BDS National Committee said they “warmly welcome” Ben & Jerry’s decision, which they said came “[f]ollowing years of #BDS campaigns.” They went on to urge the company to pull out of Israel altogether.
Cuomo’s 2016 order specifically mentioned the BDS movement, stating that “the State of New York unequivocally rejects the BDS campaign and stands firmly with Israel,” and that “the State of New York will not permit its own investment activity to further the BDS campaign in any way, shape or form, whether directly or indirectly.”
To that end, the executive order called on the commissioner of the Office of General Services to form a list of entities that boycott Israel, and for the state to divest assets and cease further investments into those entities. The order also says the list shall be updated every 180 days, allowing for new entities to be added. Those on the list can be removed if they show that they are not part of the boycott effort.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News reached out to Cuomo’s office asking if the governor has any comment on the matter and if the state intends to add Ben & Jerry’s or its parent company Unilever to the list, but they did not immediately respond. Cuomo’s senior adviser Rich Azzopardi told the Post that “this is under legal review.”
Unilever said in a statement that they “remain fully committed to our presence in Israel,” and pointed to their 2000 acquisition agreement with Ben & Jerry’s that “recognised the right of the brand and its independent Board to take decisions about its social mission.”
Israeli NGO trademarks Ben & Jerry’s knockoff after boycott – report
The ice cream debate surrounding the Ben & Jerry’s boycott is still heating up after an Israeli NGO announced plans to launch its own knock-off brand of the popular label after it announced it would stop selling in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
As first exclusively reported by The New York Post, the Tel Aviv-based Shurat HaDin Law Center applied to sell the popular ice cream under a new brand: “Judea and Samaria’s Ben & Jerry’s,” referring to the biblical names for the areas in the West Bank. The announcement was reportedly made in a letter to the CEO of Ben & Jerry’s parent firm, Unilever, on July 23, where it said it had registered a trademark with the Israeli Justice Ministry.
The new brand will look much like the original, and will include iconic flavors, such as Cherry Garcia, but with a new Zionist twist. According to The New York Post, some of the new flavors will be “Frozen Chosen People,” and the cover will be the same as the typical Ben & Jerry’s, barring the notable inclusion of the father of modern Zionism, Theodore Herzl.
According to the report, the organization has already begun negotiations with ice cream manufacturers.
The legal nonprofit is prepared to take this to court if necessary, arguing that the ice cream giant essentially forfeited its trademark by melting under pressure and announcing it would stop selling in the settlements, according to The New York Post.
The announcement by the ice cream company that it would stop selling its famous frozen deserts to what it called the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” sparked a hot debate throughout the world, with many Israeli politicians outraged at the move. The perceived link the move has with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel has also sparked further controversy, especially as many bodies have labeled the movement as inherently antisemitic.
Cuomo pressured to cut NY ties with Ben and Jerry’s over Israel sales ban
Gov. Cuomo is facing growing pressure to take action against Ben and Jerry’s and parent company Unilever after the ice cream provider announced they would no longer do business in parts of Israel.
Under the terms of Cuomo’s own 2016 executive order, New York State is enjoined from doing business with any company engaged in the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel — and critics say it’s time to put up to shut up.
“I call on him to enforce his order that bans the State of New York from doing business with companies that engage in the anti-Semitic BDS movement,” Schuylerville Rep. Elise Stefanik told The Post.
“With so many new members in the legislature and the disturbing rise in anti-Semitic attacks in our city, it’s critically important for the state to reinforce its position and show support for members of our Jewish community,” added Staten Island Republican Nicole Malliotakis.
Dozens of US states have anti-BDS laws on the books.
When pressed for a response, a rep for Cuomo, Rich Azzopardi, told The Post only that “this is under legal review.”
Cuomo’s silence so far contrasts sharply with longtime rival Mayor de Blasio, who condemned the ice cream company earlier this week.
“You cannot have peace if you undermine the economic reality and create division. I just believe it’s absolutely the wrong approach and I don’t think Ben and Jerry’s should be doing that,” Hizzonner said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Empire State institutions and municipalities are already taking action against the ice cream maker and its parent company.
The New York State Common Retirement Fund, the primary pension fund for state workers, sent a letter to Unilever Friday warning that it was considering restricting investments in the company over the issue.
Hempstead town supervisors Don Clavin promised Thursday to purge any Unilever from public buildings in the Long Island town, ABC7 reported.
The decision will go far beyond ice cream and include items such as Lipton tea bags, Dove soap, and Hellman’s mayonnaise.
“We’re going to go through every department and every contract’s going to be reviewed and we are going to hold them accountable for their support of this anti-Israel action,” Clavin said.
Ben & Jerry’s in middle of firestorm following boycott of Israel’s “occupied Palestinian territory”
A boycott campaign propelled by GOP officials in several states sprung up this week against ice cream maker Ben & Jerrys, after an earlier decision by the company to stop selling its products in Israeli occupied territory.
The Vermont-based brand, which has a long history of taking socially conscious stances, put out a statement saying it was “inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” which included the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
According to the Associated Press, “Israel annexed east Jerusalem after the 1967 war and considers the entire city its undivided capital, though the annexation is not internationally recognized. It says the West Bank is disputed territory and says its final status should be resolved in negotiations. The international community, however, widely considers both areas to be occupied territory.”
Both of the company’s founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, are Jewish.
Ben & Jerry’s has a rather unique agreement with its parent company, the international behemoth Unilever, which allows for the board to take controversial stances. To date, the decision is one of the strongest stances an American company has taken against Israel, traditionally one of America’s closest allies.
The backlash was swift, and harsh.
In response to the move, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett issued a threatening statement, vowing to “act aggressively” against the company — even going so far as to call the targeted boycott “a new form of terrorism.”
The decision to stop selling ice cream in what Israel calls “disputed territory” also incensed elected officials in both parties — Biden’s White House lamented that Ben & Jerry’s was “unfairly” targeting Israel — but especially conservative lawmakers and pundits, who have aggressively aligned themselves with Israel in recent years.
Texas and Florida, run by two of the GOP’s most well-known governors, said they are currently exploring harsh actions like a coordinated divestment campaign or even an outright ban.
Both leaders wasted no time decrying the company’s original statement.
“Ben and Jerry’s decision to boycott parts of Israel is disgraceful and an insult to America’s closest ally in the Middle East,” a statement from the office of Texas Gov. Greg Abbot Tuesday night read. “Unilever, Ben and Jerry’s parent company, must reverse this ill-conceived decision.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis placed Unilever under state review, saying “Florida has long had a strong relationship with the State of Israel,” adding that, “As a matter of law and principle, the State of Florida does not tolerate discrimination against the State of Israel or the Israeli people, including boycotts and divestments targeting Israel.”
More than 30 U.S. states have laws on the books prohibiting pension funds from investing in companies that refuse to do business with Israel — though it’s unclear if Ben & Jerry’s action this week qualifies, legally speaking. In its original statement, the company said it would not renew its local license with a longtime Israeli partner — but agreed to continue selling its products in the rest of the country “through a different arrangement.”
Nevertheless, Republican officials in both Florida and Texas both said they were discussing what recourse to pursue against the ice cream maker, including a potential divestment of state resources. Texas State Comptroller Glenn Hegar even went so far as to suggest a statewide ban of the company’s products.
Fox News also repeatedly railed on Ben & Jerry’s for the action, with many hosts calling for viewers to stop purchasing the brand.
“I wish we could return to the days where companies sold products instead of virtue signals,” Fox host Tomi Lahren lamented. “I don’t believe in cancel culture, but it is time to look at these companies and say, ‘what exactly are you standing for?'”
It wasn’t the first time the network has railed against the staunchly progressive company, with another recent controversy igniting over Ben & Jerry’s Colin Kaepernick-named ice cream, which sought to celebrate the former NFL player’s protest against police brutality.
AirBnB also found itself in a similar situation just a few years ago when the online home rental company announced in 2018 that it would no longer list properties in the occupied West Bank. The company reversed its decision just a few months later in the face of harsh criticism.