Why It Matters: The Ludicrous Backlash to Ben & Jerry’s Boycott of Israeli-Occupied Territory
Ben and Jerry’s faces a boycott of its own for boycotting Israeli-occupied territory. The calculated backlash threatens the distinction between Israel and its occupied territories, further erasing the possibility of peace. American speech may be chilled, but Palestinians and Israelis will be killed.
When Ben and Jerry’s decided to withhold its products (set to go into effect in 2022, when their contract expires) from being distributed in Israel’s occupied territory, the backlash by Israel and the U.S. alike has been nothing short of ludicrous. Israel began its usual opening salvo by going with the denouncements of the move being anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and an “economic terrorist” attack on their country, despite this literally being about a limited withdrawal of ice cream. Florida’s governor wants to add them to an Orwellian list of companies who dare oppose state foreign policy, despite the fact the state isn’t supposed to be conducting foreign policy. New York, on the other side of the political spectrum, is currently considering a similar ban on dealings with the company for its contracts. This, despite the fact that such laws are a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
The courts and people in the U.S. have a storied history in the fight for the right to boycott, whether its buses, stores, or entire nations like South Africa during apartheid. While there can be debate around whether Israel is an apartheid state, or whether it deserves a boycott for its policies, there should be no doubting people’s rights to boycott it should they choose to believe it is. The right to boycott all of Israel, yet alone a part of it, is a legally protected right, with statues barring boycotts of Israel being repeatedly struck down in court. Still, many states persist, with roughly 30 states having some kind of anti-boycott statute punishing those who might boycott Israel. No matter your stance on Israel, if you think a two-state solution is what is best to achieve peace in the region, then this is a catastrophic development.
First, Israel is increasingly aiming, and succeeding, at erasing the line between occupied territory and Israel proper. To call an ice cream company’s exercise of free speech a veritable national security threat is on its face absurd. Openly conflating it with the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to boycott all of Israel, can only be interpreted as purposefully erasing the distinction between occupied territory and Israel. This internationally recognized crime is aided and abetted by some U.S. politicians trying to score brownie points by repeating Israel’s denunciations as — you guessed it — anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and a serious threat. The absurdity of this is that it is still U.S. foreign policy to pursue a two-state solution. States should not be practicing foreign policy, as that is a federal responsibility in the U.S. system, but that doesn’t mean the illegality of it thwarts the threats and purposeful chilling effect on such speech. Even disregarding that, these states are aiding the conflation of occupied territory being the same as Israel, meaning while we pronounce a policy of a two-state solution, in practicality we are destroying the possibility for it, right alongside Israel.
Israel seems to clearly now have a policy of destroying the prospect of a two-state solution, ranging from pronouncements by their prime ministers to the backlash against Ben and Jerry’s to ensure all the land, occupied or not, is viewed as Israel’s. Of course, any who would oppose such annexation attempts are “economic terrorists” if Israel’s government is to be believed. International law, then, is an economic terrorist. Indeed, anyone who utters the word occupation might be slandered in such a way.
This brings me to my second point: how chilling is it that any company or person who opposes U.S. foreign policy or even a state’s foreign policy might find themselves boycotted by the U.S.? Are we really going to say you better be agree with U.S. or your state’s views, or else you face discrimination at the highest levels of government? I’m not comfortable sacrificing free speech, the right to dissent, and the right to express your values simply to cover Israel’s attempt at conflating its occupied territory and Israel. Nor should anyone be comfortable doing so. The right to boycott is fundamentally a matter of being able to choose where to spend your money in order to reflect your values; the State cannot force you to buy from Israel. That hasn’t stopped the slew of legislation to that effect, with coercive tactics reserved by oppressive regimes the world over being utilized to silence and discredit any who would boycott occupied territory or even Israel.
The history of the U.S. and how Native Americans had their land taken from them using such normalizing tactics is demonstrative of the progression from frontier to annexed territory. Once settlers are there, the arm of the law reaches to protect them, and in doing so, lends legitimacy and jurisdiction to its grasp and those of the settlers, who are fundamentally at an advantage over the indigenous who have no citizenship rights, and therefore little to no ability to even see their day in court. They could have the strongest possible claim even within the legal system of the colonizer, but it doesn’t matter. There is no jurisdiction over these foreign people, even as courts readily consume their foreign land. The alternative may well be to become a “wild west” as there is no alternative government setup strong enough to enforce the law on all residents. The frontier is by definition among the last places the law reaches, as cowboys in the 18th century knew well. Support for settlers then, becomes the precursors to annexation amidst long-standing occupation, and the erasure of distinctions, borders, and peoples seals the deal.
Lastly, I will stress that the degree of vitriol over this should not be dismissed. Republican and Democratic legislators alike have called merely not selling ice cream in a small part of Israel, which is occupied, as being racist, bigoted, an act of borderline terrorism. The degree of obvious ludicrousness is plain. Yet, even after courts have made rulings striking down such legislation, they continue to push for boycotts of any company who supports BDS. While they themselves have the right to boycott such companies, they cannot use the power of the State to destroy these companies as they have.
Airbnb, the home renting tech company, recently tried to pull the same move by prohibiting the listing of occupied territory houses for rental. The backlash that resulted led them to cancel the move. Thwarted by both the Israeli and U.S. government who refused to help them despite U.S. and international law being on their side, they caved. All who hope for a two state solution should hope Ben and Jerry’s doesn’t do the same. For if they cave as well, it will send the a chilling signal about what free speech is tolerated when it goes against Israel, and we will have sacrificed 1st amendment rights in the interests of helping to erase the distinction between occupied territory and Israel. History will condemn us for it, but, with the conflict continuing thus, not before Palestinians and Israelis alike pay for it. American speech may be chilled, but Palestinians and Israelis will be killed. With the borders of a proposed Palestinian territory erased, what choice will there be for Palestinians living inside a security prison? Does it devolve into a matter of fight of flight? Will a Trail of Tears result? I for one, have no wish to see the despair and its attendant results; I’ve seen enough for a lifetime. Israel must stop erasing the distinction between occupied territory and Israel, and the U.S. should put its money where its mouth is rather than trying to ban those who conscientiously try to put some price tag on Israel’s attempt to erase Palestine. If neither does not, I see nothing but the ever-raging conflict continuing. Who wins then?
