Between Ben & Jerry’s and ‘Ahed’s Knee’
Iwas preparing material on a different subject when “The Cold War” broke out on Monday. The top story became the decision by the Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s ice cream giant not to renew its contract with the Israeli licensee when it ends in December 2022 – after some 35 years. This is because the local manufacturer refused to give in to demands to stop selling its products in Judea and Samaria and east Jerusalem (or the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as Ben & Jerry’s prefers to call it.)
There was a moment of brain freeze when the shock rendered people unable to think clearly, but then as more information became available Israeli consumers were better able to digest what it meant.
The ice cream news story – what pundit could resist calling it a scoop? – was more complicated than it seemed at first. Like many others, my first response was to declare war in return: Ben & Jerry’s boycotts us? I boycott them back. I wasn’t alone: An A-list of Israelis – including leader of the opposition Benjamin Netanyahu and Economy Minister Orna Barbivay – took to social media platforms with similar sentiments. Barbivay even filmed herself taking a tub of Ben & Jerry’s from her freezer and throwing it in the kitchen garbage bin. She was later ridiculed when it became clear that as the minister under whose purview such matters fall, she should have realized that she was hurting a local large employer rather than the Ben & Jerry’s owners who had triggered the meltdown. Avi Zinger, the Israeli licensee, takes pride in the way the factory at Be’er Tuviya provides jobs where they are much needed in an area of southern Israel.
The local companies of both Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever (the parent company) issued statements emphasizing that they were not behind the decision, and in Ben & Jerry’s case, it was actually being punished for refusing to give in to boycott and divestment demands.
The Unilever international company, too, clarified that they did not want to divest from Israel and had persuaded B&J’s not to boycott Israel in its entirety.
The situation as it stands as I type these lines can be summed up thus: In Israel, it’s possibly a mitzvah (good deed) to consume Ben & Jerry’s, while abroad it is possibly ethically unkosher.
Ben & Jerry’s – founded by two Jews, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield – is a good example of what happens when a moral compass spins so fast it completely loses its direction. And, as I have said before, when activists claim they can’t be antisemitic because they’re Jewish, it makes about as much sense as saying someone can’t be inhumane because they’re human.
The company likes to boast of its commitment to social justice. It’s nice to know they care: When rockets rained down on the Israeli company in May we didn’t hear any complaints about Hamas’s human rights abuses. Or perhaps if you can’t blame the Jewish state, it doesn’t count.
Progressive friends tried to make B&J’s decision seem more tasteful than it was. But their logic is about as sustainable as a dollop of ice cream that falls to the ground on a hot summer’s day. According to their thinking, distinguishing between Israel “proper” and the territories beyond the Green Line was a positive development. But since when has singling out one country – or one religious population alone – been a good thing? If companies want to avoid doing business in countries that have territorial disputes they’ll find the list of potential markets woefully short. Some150 countries are involved in territorial/maritime disputes and/or independence conflicts; no continent is unaffected.
Ben & Jerry’s big bosses might have thought they have the situation licked but their boycott move benefits no one. For example, the decision to halt sales in the West Bank will harm Palestinian workers who work for the main distributor there, the distributor noted. Many people this week tried to work out whether Palestinians in the “OPT” would be grateful for no longer having the sugar-rich product available at local supermarkets. Or would Palestinian stores be permitted to sell the trademark tubs, which would be forbidden only to Jews? Or perhaps only to Jews in certain neighborhoods? Could my southern Jerusalem neighbors continue to devour Ben & Jerry’s while residents in newer northern neighborhoods be left licking their lips? (“East” Jerusalem, it
should be noted, is also a complicated misnomer.)
BEFORE THE Ben & Jerry’s story became the flavor of the week, I had planned to write about a different, but perhaps not unrelated, subject. On Saturday night, July 17, Israeli director Nadav Lapid’s film, Ahed’s Knee, won the Jury Prize at the 74th Cannes Film Festival (sharing the award with Thai filmmaker Apichatpong Weerasthakul’s Memoria.)
I confess right now that I haven’t seen the movie and don’t intend to buy a ticket to see it. As an Israeli taxpayer, I feel I have already paid too much on this film. The movie centers on an Israeli filmmaker battling the Culture Ministry for artistic freedom. It’s a movie about making a movie and it received some funding from the Israel Film Fund and the Culture and Sport Ministry – the very body it critiques. In case you were in any doubt, Ahed of the title is Ahed Tamimi, who
shot to international fame when she was filmed hitting an Israeli soldier during a protest. Tamimi, the cousin of Sbarro pizza bombing terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, was once nicknamed in Israel “Shirley Temper” for her hallmark blonde curls and habit of trying to provoke soldiers on film. She is now branded a “resistance icon” and both she and Lapid have been described as “brave.”
As journalist Ben-Dror Yemini pointed out, however, it doesn’t take courage to blacken Israel’s name in international forums – although it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to take state funding to do it. And imagine what would have happened had Tamimi lashed out at a soldier or policeman anywhere else in the world: That would have taken guts. The IDF soldier who was slapped remained remarkably composed and resisted the temptation to hit her back.
In another “reel”-life check from
Cannes, several Arab and Palestinian actors in Eran Kolirin’s Let There Be Morning decided not to attend the festival because it featured as an “Israeli film” – that might have had everything to do with the fact that it also received funding from the State of Israel. Talk about cheap shots.
BDS and acts of anti-normalization do nothing to bring peace. On the contrary. For another example of the theater of absurd, look at this story this week by The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh. Abu Toameh – who can genuinely be called courageous – reported that the Palestinian Authority security forces have arrested a Palestinian singer for performing in Ariel, a Jewish town in Samaria. She was reportedly invited to perform at a party held by an Israeli factory for its Palestinian workers. The singer, a resident of the West Bank village of Kafr ad-Dik, will be tried on charges of promoting normalization with Israel, Abu Toameh learned. The PA was obviously upset that anyone dared try counter the apartheid libel at multiple levels.
The BDS movement has become so ridiculous that, in the name of “social justice, human rights and dignity,” as they wrote in their letter, the Durban International Film Festival (DIFF) recently barred the participation of Yakie Ayalon simply for being Israeli. “We will not represent any Israeli filmmakers,” they stated bluntly.
Ironically, Ayalon is known for his documentaries on social issues, including the plight of Africans. On his website he describes his hope that viewers of his work will “identify with the ‘other.’”
When “the other” is Israeli, evidently DIFF doesn’t want to risk anyone being exposed.
BDS like this is hard to swallow. And regardless of what develops in the Ben & Jerry’s affair it has already left a bad taste.