Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield’s self-righteous defense of boycotting disputed territories in Israel fails to put their namesake ice cream company’s actions in a proper context. Both Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and its corporate owner, Unilever, continue to sell their products in many of the most repressive countries in the world — countries that murder dissidents, imprison journalists, enslave women, exploit children and occupy other people’s land.
So, the question that Ben and Jerry refuse to answer is: Why do you single out only parts of Israel and Palestinian territories for a boycott? Why not list all the countries in the world that they serve in order of the seriousness of their human rights violations and boycott them in order of their seriousness?
Such an action would, of course, damage the bottom line of both companies far more than its selective boycott of portions of Israel and the disputed territories.
The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Israeli policies; I disagree with some, just as I disagree with some American policies. The key question is whether singling out part of the nation-state of the Jewish people for a boycott is moral, legal and proper. Thomas Friedman, a frequent critic of Israel, put it very well when he said, “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”
The reality is that no country in the Middle East, or indeed in the world today, that is faced with threats comparable to those faced by Israel can boast a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law and concern for the lives of enemy civilians. Israel’s record is far from perfect, but it is better than most and better than any other country in the Middle East. Yet, Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company continue to sell to other countries in the Middle East and around the world with far worse records.
Nor can this selective boycott be justified on the claim that Israel is different because of its close relation to the United States. Jordan and Egypt receive massive economic and military aid from the United States and have far worse human rights records. The same is true of other recipients of American economic and military aid. The American connection is a phony excuse for bigotry and anti-Semitism against the world’s only Jewish state.
Israel’s continuing control over the disputed territory is largely a function of Palestinian refusal to accept generous Israeli offers to end the military occupation that began in 1967. Under international law, military occupations are justified so long as resistance continues and peace is not accepted. Israel offered to end its occupation in 2000 and 2001 and 2008. It unilaterally ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in 2005, removing every single soldier and settler.
The result was a Hamas takeover, thousands of rockets, terror tunnels and continued belligerence. Israel would have every right under international law to re-occupy the Gaza Strip, but it has chosen not to. Were it to abandon its military control over the West Bank without a permanent agreement — which the Palestinians have rejected — it would be inviting a repeat of the Gaza experience, but a much more dangerous one because of the proximity of parts of the West Bank to parts of Israeli population centers and its international airport.
The issues surrounding the continued occupation of the disputed territories, including East Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, are complex and difficult. They are not the sort of issues that should give rise to boycotts and other economic sanctions. They are not like the imprisonment of journalists and dissidents by Turkey, not like the gender discrimination practiced by most Arab and Muslim states, not like the detention camps created for Uyghurs by China, not like the denial of basic liberties by Cuba, and certainly not like the hanging of gays by Iranian and Hamas mullahs.
As an advocate for the two-state solution since 1970, I fervently hope that the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership will return to the negotiating table. But a boycott of the West Bank — which will hurt Palestinians that work for Ben & Jerry’s — will not help achieve a two state solution.
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Vermont Jews who say they are “supporters of the state of Israel,” should be ashamed of their hypocrisy. I for one will never eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream again, not only because it has too many calories, too much fat and uses sugar and cocoa from countries that exploit child labor, but because their decision to single out parts of Israel for an economic boycott is anti-Semitic.
Dershowitz is the author of “The Case Against BDS” and other books.
