A senior boss at Ben & Jerry’s has expressed support for the ice cream manufacturer’s decision to stop selling ice cream in “the Occupied Palestinian territory” and refuted claims she was “antisemitic”.
“I am proud of [Ben & Jerry’s] for taking a stance to end the sale of its ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian territory. This action is not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic. The vile hate that has been thrown at me does not intimidate me. Pls work for peace – not hatred!” tweeted Anuradha Mittal, chair of the board of directors.
Following her tweet, Ms Mittal was criticised and supported by several social media users, including those from the Jewish community. She, in turn, retweeted and thanked several users who showed her support on Twitter.
The remarks come as the company faces criticism over its decision to stop selling ice cream in West Bank settlements and the contested east Jerusalem territory.
The company, known for its social activism, said such sales were “inconsistent with our values”, adding that it informed a long-time Israeli partner that it will not renew its license agreement once it expires at the end of 2022.
Ben & Jerry’s clarified its stance, however, saying while it would not serve its products in Israeli-occupied areas, it would continue to provide them in Israel “through a different arrangement”.
The ice cream maker’s parent company Unilever has since faced scathing criticism, including an official government response, for its decision.
Last week, Israel’s prime minister Naftali Bennett vowed to “act aggressively” against the decision and the country’s envoy to the US urged dozens of state governors to punish the company under anti-boycott laws.
It is thought by some that the decision by Ben & Jerry’s could lead to some other companies following suit.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem after the 1967 war and considers the city its capital, though the annexation is not internationally recognised.
The country says the West Bank is a disputed territory and says its final status should be resolved in negotiations. The international community, however, widely considers both areas to be occupied territory.
Additional reporting by agencies
