VTJP Urges Unilever to Stop the Sale of Ben& Jerry's Ice Cream in Occupied Palestine But Unilever does not Respond

In April, and again in May 2018, VTJP wrote to the executive management team of Unilever in the Netherlands. Ben & Jerry's is a subsidiary of Unilever, a British-Dutch conglomerate which bought the Vermont company in 2001.

The first letter urged the company "to intervene immediately and decisively, as Ben & Jerry's parent company, to put a stop to your U.S. subsidiary's commerce conducted by its Israeli franchise in Israel's illegal, Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem."

The letter charted the history of Ben & Jerry's complicity with Israel's occupation and settlement regime, in violation of international law, and VTJP's efforts to put an end to it since 2011. It also noted the allegation VTJP made in 2014, based on information from Israeli activists, that Ben & Jerry's franchise in Israel purchases equipment from an illegal settlement in the occupied Golan Heights of Syria.

Unilever did not respond to the letter, but, directed, we believe, Jostein Solheim to do so. He is Ben & Jerry's CEO in South Burlington, Vermont. Mr. Solheim sent VTJP a letter dated May 4th 2018. It spun Ben & Jerry's complicity with Israel's military occupation and settlements as a form of "economic cooperation" and "engagement" designed to "resolve conflicts," promote "social equity," and help "marginalized peoples." It also attempted to justify the company's commerce in occupied Palestine on the basis of protocols signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 1994 (which are part of the failed and discredited Oslo Accords.)

Once again, Mr. Solheim did not make a single reference to the occupation or Israel's settlements - an omission more striking than normal given that it came during the period of massive protests in Gaza (The Great March of Return) and the slaughter and maiming of nonviolent protesters by Israeli snipers.

VTJP rebutted Solheim's points in its second letter to Unilever in May, and expressed again its desire to engage Unilever directly. We have yet to receive a response to the second letter (July 2018).

