Israeli Prime Minister Naftali
Bennett is now issuing some
threats against Unilever, which is
the company the corporation that
Ben & Jerry's falls under.
Now, why is this happening?
Well, it turns out the Ben &
Jerry's announced that it will no
longer sell its ice cream,
in occupied areas of Israel,
particularly the West Bank.
And this led to some backlash from
the Israeli government, and
I want to share those details.
So first, a little context,
Ben & Jerry said in a statement
on Monday, that it had informed its
long standing licensee, responsible
for manufacturing and distributing
the ice cream in Israel.
That it will not renew the license
agreement when it expires at
the end of 2022.
And the reason why they're making
this decision is because of,
Palestinian territory that has been
occupied by Israelis, that is
something that is considered
a crime, international crime.
The international community has
condemned it with the exception
of the United States.
And so Ben & Jerry's wants to take
a stance on this, and inevitably
that has led to some pushback.
Let's start with
the Prime Minister, the relatively
new prime minister Naftali Bennett.
Prime Minister Bennett spoke with
Alan Jope, CEO of Unilever which
owns Ben & Jerry's and
made it clear that he views with
utmost gravity, the decision by
Ben & Jerry's to boycott Israel.
And added that this is a subsidiary
of Unilever, which has taken
a clearly anti-Israel step.
Also Israel's Foreign Minister has
weighed in and criticized the
decision on Monday as a surrender
to ongoing and aggressive pressure
from extreme anti-Israel groups.
And said the company was
cooperating with economic
terrorism, economic terrorism.
And so the statement from the Prime
Minister Francesca was essentially
that, the Israeli government plans
on fighting back aggressively.
I don't know what that
really means, right?
So what are the consequences
supposed to be when you're talking
about a company that has decided to
take a political
position on something,
by not selling its product
in an area that is occupied, right?
They have their own values and
their own ethics on this issue, and
so they're following through on
that, but the Israeli government is
issuing kind of like this vague
threat about it.
>> Yeah I mean,
it is especially ironic given
the year that Israel Palestine and
specifically people living in the
occupied territories, and occupied
Jerusalem have experienced.
To call something like a non
violent boycott of an ice cream
companies, to call that terrorism,
when you see the state
sponsored terrorism, that the State
of Israel has been raining down on
the Palestinian people for decades.
And especially this year, right, so
and it all is part and
parcel of the fact that,
Israel's has an agenda to stop,
any kind of resistance, right?
So the question I always ask
Zionists is, what kind of
Palestinian resistance, or
what kind of civil resistance from
the international community,
in support of Palestinian human
rights do you accept?
Right if you say that you don't
support the actions of Hamas,
right, that's fine.
If you say you don't support
let's say nonviolent protests,
we know that the IDF regularly open
fires with live ammunition
on young protesters and kills them.
If neither of those things are okay
then what is okay is an economic
boycott that is non violent
internationally okay?
Clearly the answer is no, and
they're running scared man, how
else do you get triggered by Chunky
Monkey, and it's because you know.
You know that throughout our
history right throughout world
history that boycotts work,
that whether it's the civil rights
movement in the south, and
companies that boycotted
segregated states.
Or whether it's in South Africa,
apartheid, right and the companies
that boycotted that regime,
leading eventually to
isolating it economically and
diplomatically, and
leading it to change its policies.
It is a well worn tactic,
it is a non violent tactic, but
again they see the writing on
the wall, and they're trying to
jump out ahead of it.
Yeah what I think is so fascinating
is you know various camps, various
groups that refuse to ever take any
responsibility or more importantly
see foreign relations or
even domestic politics,
through a nuanced lens.
So that's certainly the case in
Israel where on one hand,
of course you can understand
the importance of a place for
Israelis to live safely, without
any fear of retaliation from Hamas
or any other group of people.
You want a situation in which
people can live in peace and
prosper.
On the other hand, it seems as
though for a very long time,
especially in in US media,
any effort to justifiably criticize
the actions specifically of
the Israeli government in their
aggression toward Palestinians.
Whether it be in Gaza, or
the West Bank or East Jerusalem,
has resulted in the most insane
accusations of anti-semitism,
of hatred toward Jewish people,
which is I think that's
absolutely insane, right?
It's a way of shutting
down the conversation immediately,
and I think it's wrong.
I mean you see similar actions on
the left in regard to issues like
Syria, for instance, right?
On one hand you obviously can say
we shouldn't invade Syria, we
shouldn't do intervention in Syria,
but you can also look at Syria for
what it is and you can analyze and
critique the actions of
Bashar Al Assad.
But this absolutism that I'm seeing
in various international issues is
toxic and awful.
And honestly the people who see
things in a black and white way and
then urge everyone to see
everything through their lens,
they're not helping the situation
at all at all.
That kind of black and
white thinking doesn't lead to any
real solutions on the ground.
Now I say that obviously by
thinking about Michael Brooks
because he was one of the few
people who was able to provide
international analysis, that was
nuanced that was well researched.
And he talked about Israel quite
a bit, honestly and
there have been videos that have
gone viral of his, after his
passing on this very issue.
One of the videos that actually has
not gone viral but I wanted to
share with you all, has to do with
the allegations of anti-semitism
anytime anyone wants to do again,
justified critique of the Israeli
government, let's watch.
>> The reality is is that Ilhan
Omar is correct on the merits,
she's correct on the policy saying
that she said this comment about
dual allegiance is a great leap
to begin with and I have to
say I find it extraordinary.
That people on the right, know
sometimes accurately by the way,
not always but sometimes accurately
say people on the left, jumped to
accusations too quickly at various
bigotries and read into things.
They've been reading into every
single thing,
that the Congresswoman has said
from the beginning.
Most of which are substantive
critiques of a sovereign nation
state, that happens to administer
a horrific regime, that violates
people's rights on a daily basis in
Gaza, the West Bank, and even
inside Israel in some respects.
The new indictment about Netanyahu
isn't just garden variety
corruption, it involves actually
undermining democracy.
So, I support Ilhan Omar,
I don't buy and I also in fact
support Corbin in fact, and
the reality is that, these things
are going to become debated on
the merits, and we're not going to
have a false equivalency.
And actually drag down
the profoundly serious issue of
anti-Semitism by equating it with
all criticism of a sovereign nation
state that administers apartheid in
reality, >> That was a debate
that Michael did on i24, and
I highly recommend everyone look
up that video on YouTube,
you will enjoy that debate.
But Francesca I wanted you to jump
in because I can hear you,
kind of agreeing with
what Michael said there.
>> Yeah absolutely we need to pull
these things apart and we need to
call things what they are,
if it's a human rights violation,
if it's it's illegal under
international law for Israel to be
occupying the West Bank.
And when we say occupying we mean
further encroaching,
there's never been a status quo
sadly in Israel Palestine meaning,
there's always more settlements,
what does that mean?
There's always new roads that only
settlers, only Israeli settlers can
drive on, can use.
There's always diversion of water
of land access, there's toppling of
olive trees that have been there
for thousands of years.
You cannot be neutral on a moving
train, as Howard Zinn once said,
right and that is Israel Palestine,
perfectly.
And here's the thing, we see every
time the right, likes to weaponize
their brands against causes right
like gay people getting married and
living in peace and harmony and
love.
Yeah so Chick-fil-A, go for it
right Hobby Lobby, please deny all
the birth control you can from your
workers, that is all fine and good.
That's not cancel culture,
that's not censorship, but
then when it comes to Israel,
the right and
the Israeli lobby are so so
knee jerk.
When it comes to a private
corporation taking its own action
to try and do what it can to
mitigate the continued suffering of
the Palestinian people.
And one of the ways is say,
hey man, I'm not going to have my
products sold in these illegal
settlements, that makes
all the sense in the world.
And I would actually add that
people on the left could pressure
Ben & Jerry's to even withdraw
their ice cream from Israel itself.
Because Israel doesn't see
a difference between it's occupied
territories and itself.
And we know that a lot of boycotts
have asked let's say,
Stevie Wonder and other artists to
not perform in Israel as a sign to
say we don't support
the actions of this government.
It's not to say
we don't support Israeli people,
that we don't support
their right to live in peace and
all of that to defend itself, but
this is a highly unequal situation.
This a defenseless population in
the case of Gaza, being completely
bludgeoned by by one of the most,
if not the most advanced military
on Earth.
>> Absolutely and
you mentioned the right wing's knee
jerk reaction on this very topic.
One of the things that the right
wing has kind of taken on as part
of their project, even though
they're certainly hypocrites on it,
is the issue of the First Amendment
and the freedom of speech.
And what's really fascinating about
this particular story, and
it's ties to free speech is just
how easily the right wing forgets
about the First Amendment as long,
as criticism toward Israel is
involved.
For instance,
Israel's ambassador to Washington,
Gilad Erdan said that he raised
the Ben & Jerry's decision in
a letter to 35 U.S governors,
here's the relevant part.
Who's States legislated against
boycotting Israel, so remember
we've talked about in previous
episodes of the show, about how
right wing Governors or right-wing
State legislatures have legislated
against the BDS movement.
Which has this not been challenged
in the courts because, regardless
of what you feel about the,
boycott divestment movement,
we're supposed to have, freedom of
expression in this country.
We're supposed to be able to engage
in political action,
political speech,
without the government,
retaliating against us.
Right wing governors retaliating
against Americans who hold these
political views, or speak truth
to power in regard to the Israeli
government being punished for
it is unconstitutional.
But the right wing doesn't mind
this, at all, that's totally fine.
>> Yeah and I do think, it is
disappointing to know that Senators
like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders have supported the,anti-BDS
calls and legislation in Congress.
And that everyone save for
I believe there were 16
progressive Congress people who did
not support an anti-BDS policy,
that most people are just sort of
willing to go along with this.
Again, we're talking about a non
violent form of protest, right?
This is not about endorsing Hamas,
this is not about,
again this is not about
even endorsing non-violent process.
This is literally about, no, we
should remove money from if there
is profiteering from occupation,
and from human rights violations,
right?
So I mean, you have to call these
democrats out and you gotta wonder,
with all the talk about trying to
end forever wars and we really need
to get out of the Middle East,
changing our relationship with
Israel is so pivotal to that.
So folks like Sanders and
Warren and Kamala Harris and
Cory Booker who all voted for
this anti-BDS legislation,
should be held held accountable.
How do you expect the United States
to extricate itself from its
terrible role in the Middle East,
without changing its relationship
to Israel. Without changing its
relationship to Saudi Arabia, that
absolutely Saudi Arabia and Israel,
they might seem like enemies.
They very much work hand in hand
when it comes to baiting
the United States into more war,
into more aggression, they love it,
they can't get enough of it.