Latest news with #Ben&Jerry's'
Middle East Eye
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
'Concentration camp': Israel's planned new city in Rafah, explained
Israel Katz is calling it a 'humanitarian city', from which Palestinians will be encouraged to 'voluntarily emigrate' out of Gaza. But analysts believe the Israeli defence minister, who unveiled plans this week to confine over two million Palestinians into a small area in southern Gaza, is using distorted language. Experts in genocide and international law say the 'humanitarian city' is more akin to a concentration camp. And any talk of 'voluntary emigration', they told Middle East Eye, should actually be read as forcible displacement. The proposals are not fringe discussions. They were revealed by Katz, and appear to have the backing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Here, we break down what we know about the plan, how it relates to months-long US and Israeli rhetoric of ejecting Palestinians from Gaza, and what the international legal implications are. What do we know about the 'humanitarian city' plan? New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Katz said the plan would initially involve the ejection of 600,000 displaced Palestinians currently living in camps and makeshift homes in the al-Mawasi area of southern Gaza to an area in the ruins of Rafah city. Once they arrive in this new zone, security screenings would take place. They won't be allowed to leave once they've entered, Katz said. Eventually, the entire civilian population of over two million in Gaza would be confined to this small 'city'. Four aid distribution centres are to be established within the area. The defence minister initially said that Israeli forces would secure the perimeter of the site, but would not run it. He said Israel was seeking international partners to manage the city. However, an Israeli official told Haaretz that Israel may run the area 'for the time being'. The official said that Netanyahu thinks that if Israel doesn't manage the zone in the short term, 'no one will volunteer on their own accord to take control over the humanitarian matter, and Hamas will simply continue to rule'. Netanyahu 'backs Gaza concentration camp' plan, reportedly says 'feed them Ben & Jerry's' Read More » The source added that the prime minister believed that countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE would then be incentivised to take over Israeli control of the area, 'without being considered collaborators with Israel'. There is no evidence that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or any other country in the region has expressed a desire to be involved in the plans. Katz said that once concentrated in the new city, Palestinians would be encouraged to 'voluntarily' leave the Gaza Strip for other countries, as part of an 'emigration plan' he said 'will happen'. He added that Netanyahu was leading efforts to find countries to take in Palestinians from Gaza. There is not yet a clear indication as to when construction for such a new city would begin, or if it could go ahead without international backing. Katz envisaged that if conditions permitted, the city would be built during a two-month pause in hostilities. Such a ceasefire is being negotiated between Israel and Hamas, via intermediaries, but is far from being agreed. What does international law say? The planned city will violate multiple provisions of international humanitarian law (IHL), according to Eitan Diamond, a Jerusalem-based senior legal expert at the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre. He said that in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, populations in occupied territories 'shall at all times be humanely treated', and may only exceptionally be placed under assigned residence or internment when there are 'imperative reasons of security'. 'A blanket decision to enclose hundreds of thousands of people in a concentration camp or zone clearly falls well outside the lawful exception and would entail an unlawful deprivation of liberty in breach of IHL and of human rights law,' Diamond told Middle East Eye. The Fourth Geneva Convention also states that mass transfers of people from an occupied territory are prohibited. 'Third countries that willingly take part in the crime would be complicit in the violation of the law' - Neve Gordon, Israeli expert on international law 'Compelling residents of the occupied territory to move from their homes to another part of the occupied territory would constitute a prohibited act of forcible transfer,' said Diamond. In relation to Katz's 'emigration plan', Diamond added that compelling the population to leave the occupied territory altogether to move to another country 'would constitute an act of deportation'. 'Both are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, implicating those responsible in the commission of a war crime.' He added that when such acts are committed as part of a systematic attack against a civilian population, which appears to be the case in Gaza, it implicates those responsible in the crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer. IHL permits warring parties to temporarily transfer civilian populations for humanitarian reasons, however they must be allowed to return to their homes. 'These are often called 'safe zones', 'safe areas', 'buffer zones', and 'safe humanitarian zones',' Neve Gordon, an Israeli professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University of London, told MEE. 'What Katz is proposing is a 'humanitarian concentration camp', which is a very different story.' Diamond said that a warring party cannot move a population to avoid risks being caused by that same warring party. As such, he said, Israel's plan to displace hundreds of thousands of people into a very tight area could not be characterised as a lawful evacuation. 'On the contrary, such actions would almost certainly amount to an act of ethnic cleansing.' Is the emigration plan really 'voluntary'? The short answer is no. Katz's 'emigration plan' is a manifestation of US President Donald Trump's proposal to ethnically cleanse the enclave. Trump said in February that Washington would 'take over' the Gaza Strip and eject the Palestinian population to other countries. In the meantime, the enclave would be turned into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'. Katz has been a cheerleader for these plans for months. In March, he announced a new government agency set up to oversee "voluntary departures" in compliance with Trump's proposal. 'Concentrating the civilian population in the way Israel proposes is clearly an act of genocide' - Martin Shaw, sociologist 'The phrase 'voluntary emigration' has long been used in Zionist ideology as a euphemism for expelling the Palestinian people from their homeland, including by creating coercive conditions that compel the natives to leave,' Nimer Sultany, a Palestinian academic in public law at Soas University in London, told MEE. Sultany noted that Katz had long threatened Palestinians with another Nakba, having made such remarks in 2022 before the ongoing war. The Nakba, or "catastrophe", refers to the forced displacement of 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homes in 1948. 'There is nothing voluntary about any emigration scheme that Israel devises in these circumstances,' Martin Shaw, a prominent sociologist and author of several books on the subject of genocide, told MEE. 'The people of Gaza have been bombed out of their homes, lost their loved ones, starved and shot at when they try to get food. 'Israel will be using all this cruelty to force people to leave, and to remove their right to return as they have from previous generations of Palestinians.' Tony Blair Institute linked to Gaza plan condemned as ethnic cleansing: Report Read More » Diamond said that it is well established under IHL that forcible displacements can be brought about by a coercive environment. 'When a party creates conditions that compel people to move to avert conditions that threaten their lives or wellbeing, their decision to move is not a genuine choice,' he said. 'This is no more voluntary than the decision of a person who hands over their wallet to a gun robber saying 'your money or your life.'' So far, Israel has failed to find any countries willing to take displaced Palestinians from Gaza. 'Given that Israel's actions and future plans are blatantly illegal and constitute war crimes, third countries that willingly take part in the crime would be complicit in the violation of the law,' said Gordon. The UN said on Wednesday that it stood firmly against any such plans to forcibly displace those in Gaza. How is the 'city' being described by experts? Many legal experts, including one of Britain's most distinguished human rights lawyers, have said the plans are synonymous with concentration camps. Sultany noted that the plans involve a starving population being 'concentrated' into a tiny site and being prevented from leaving. Baroness Helena Kennedy labels Israel's Gaza campaign a genocide Read More » 'In other words, the civilian population has no choice, and they will be placed in a prison or a ghetto that Israel controls,' he stated. 'This is the definition of a concentration camp.' He said that Israel had already concentrated Palestinians in less than 20 percent of Gaza, and imposed conditions on them 'that bring about their physical destruction'. 'The evidence that Israel has been committing a genocide is overwhelming,' Sultany said. Shaw, author of War and Genocide, What is Genocide and Genocide and International Relations, agreed. 'Concentrating the civilian population in the way Israel proposes is clearly an act of genocide,' he said. He added that Katz's proposal was designed to 'consolidate the results' of Israeli killings over the past 21 months by heading towards 'removing the survivors so as to complete the destruction of Palestinian society in Gaza". 'The destruction of a society is, of course, the very meaning of genocide.'
Middle East Eye
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
US ignored report saying GHF was not fit to deliver aid in Gaza: Report
The main US government agency that distributes foreign aid raised 'critical concerns' about a newly formed aid group's ability to deliver food safely and effectively to Palestinians in Gaza, just days before the Trump administration announced $30m in funding for the organisation, CNN reported on Tuesday. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) in June wrote a 14-page confidential internal assessment, criticising a request for funding submitted by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF). According to the assessment, which was obtained by CNN, at least nine elements normally required to obtain government funding were not included in the application, such as insufficient planning information ensuring Palestinians would actually receive aid. One criticism was that the overall plan lacked 'basic details' regarding a scheme to give out powdered baby formula in a Gaza area where clean drinking water is not available. 'I do not concur with moving forward with GHF given operational and reputational risks and lack of oversight," a USAID official said, concluding it would not be safe to move forward with the GHF organisation. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters A source familiar with GHF's application told CNN on the condition of anonymity that the paperwork was "abysmal" and "sorely lacking real content'. Another source said USAID staff had expressed worries about working with GHF because they did not think the group could uphold the humanitarian principle of "do no harm". 'GHF must explain how it will Do No Harm,' USAID said, asking the organisation to supply safety, accountability and access details. Expedited approval Despite the concerns, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and deputy administrator for policy and programmes at USAID, Jeremy Lewin, pressed ahead for expedited approval, two sources told CNN. Another source said that expedited approvals are typically reserved for trusted partners, and GHF would not likely have been funded under normal procedures. After the confidential assessment was made, USAID CFO and deputy administrator for management and resources Kenneth Jackson recommended that Lewin 'waive the various criteria given the humanitarian and political urgency of GHF's operations' in an internal memo dated 24 June. Netanyahu 'backs Gaza concentration camp' plan, reportedly says 'feed them Ben & Jerry's' Read More » Both Lewin and Jackson oversaw cuts to USAID as part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Two days later, on 26 June, the State Department approved the funding, detailing the requirements needed for the funds, including some concerns raised by USAID. The $30m funding award has not been disbursed yet and will be released in stages, provided that GHF meets key requirements. GHF is seeking $30m of its $100m operating costs from the State Department. A State Department official last week also suggested the US could provide further funding to GHF as long as it continues to operate 'safely and securely and consistent with sort of the principles that we've laid out for them'. In response to the report, the GHF said in a statement, "GHF has done what others could not: deliver free, nutritious, and secure emergency food aid directly to the people of Gaza without interference from Hamas". "In just over a month, we've delivered more than 66 million meals. We're grateful to the Trump Administration for recognizing the impact of our work with a $30 million commitment to help expand our operations," the organisation added. The group said that its 'success stands in stark contrast to groups that have received US government funding for years - including the UN'. Controversy The US and Israeli-backed GHF was established after Israel blocked humanitarian aid from entering Gaza for 11 weeks. Criticisms of GHF in the assessment have been mirrored by international humanitarian aid groups who have a track record of safely and effectively delivering food and aid to Palestinians over decades, such as the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees, which was banned from operating by Israel. The UN and major aid groups have refused to work with GHF, saying it serves Israeli military goals and violates basic humanitarian principles. GHF's scheme replaced 400 aid distribution points across the enclave with four militarised distribution sites in central and south Gaza, where millions have been forced to travel from other areas of the strip on foot and risk death in the hope of receiving aid since it started operating on 27 May. The militarised sites involve US armed security contractors working with the Israeli military. Both American contractors and Israeli soldiers have reportedly killed at least 640 Palestinians seeking aid in the last six weeks it has been in operation. Israeli troops have admitted to deliberately shooting and killing unarmed Palestinians waiting for aid in the Gaza Strip, following direct orders from their superiors. More than 170 NGOs called for immediate action to end the 'deadly' US and Israeli-backed GHF aid scheme on 1 July, and revert back to UN-led aid coordination mechanisms. Timeline: Trump's remarks on the forcible transfer of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » 'Today, Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food to feed their families,' the NGOs said in a joint statement. The signatories include Oxfam, Save the Children, Amnesty, Doctors Without Borders, and Action Aid. GHF's chairman, Johnnie Moore, a Christian evangelical leader aligned with US President Donald Trump, has denied that any Palestinians had been killed at its sites, telling journalists earlier this month that no violence had occurred. "We have not had a single violent incident in our distribution sites. We haven't had a violent incident in close proximity to our distribution sites," he said.
Boston Globe
26-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Ben & Jerry's fights Unilever on social justice in the Trump era
It never saw the light of day. The post was nixed by Ben & Jerry's' parent company Unilever Plc, people familiar with the matter said, like others supporting Palestinian refugees, defending the rights of student protesters and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Anglo-Dutch multinational's actions are raising questions about the future of the campaigning tradition it pledged to protect when it bought Ben & Jerry's a quarter century ago. Since then, a series of Unilever chief executive officers has tried to bring the brand's independent board to heel. As Unilever prepares to spin off its $20.4 billion ice cream business, the Ben & Jerry's board, which defends its right to speak out, has dragged the group to court — fearing its social mission will meet the same fate as the failed product experiments in the label's 'flavor graveyard.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The battle has turned into a test case for companies' ability to support social causes in the Trump era. Firms ranging from McDonald's Corp. to JPMorgan Chase & Co. have rolled back diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and Unilever itself has watered down some of its social and environmental pledges. The blocking of the Black History Month post came just weeks after Trump took office, with companies striving to avoid getting on the wrong side of the new administration. Advertisement Court filings and interviews with insiders, former employees, and investors show how ugly the tussle between the two sides has become as Ben & Jerry's' board insists it's going to fight the trend. Advertisement The battle is an ill-timed distraction for Unilever as its spinoff plan gets underway. It wants to get the ice cream business, which also includes brands like Magnum and Walls, back on track under the watchful eye of activist investor Nelson Peltz. Unilever plans to run the business as a separate entity named The Magnum Ice Cream Company from July. It says the spinoff, expected later this year, won't threaten the role of Ben & Jerry's' board, with Magnum inheriting the governance structure. Peter ter Kulve, the ice cream division president and the proposed candidate to be Magnum's CEO, was accused in filings by the Ben & Jerry's board of blocking posts on a Gaza ceasefire and describing an accord to buy almonds from Palestinian farmers as 'forced.' The board questioned 'whether the new entity will adhere to Unilever's contractual commitments.' The Ben & Jerry's board wants a judge to ratify its social-mission role ahead of the spinoff, while Unilever is seeking to ensure Magnum isn't burdened by legacy issues. In response to queries from Bloomberg, Unilever said the board's 'recent unnecessarily inflammatory and divisive approach' goes contrary to the spirit of 'Peace, Love & Ice Cream' underlying Ben & Jerry's' product, economic and social mission it has supported for over two decades. Unilever said in legal filings that it continues to purchase almonds from Palestinian producers. The group said it withheld funds from some charities and sought amendments to public statements to avoid being seen as taking sides on the conflict in Gaza or supporting organizations that made divisive comments about Israel. It said it had agreed to a post calling for a ceasefire provided it also condemned terrorism and called for the release of hostages, which it said would align with the position of the late Pope Francis. Advertisement Ben & Jerry's traces its political activism to its beginnings in 1978, when the founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield — who had been friends since their childhood in Merrick, New York — opened an ice cream parlor in a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vermont. Its social agenda is so intimately tied to its identity that the founders expressed an interest in buying the brand back, although Unilever says it's not for sale. When Unilever bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000, the deal included an agreement allowing the ice cream company to maintain an independent board charged with 'preserving and enhancing' its mission and safeguarding the brand's integrity, Ronald Soiefer, Ben & Jerry's general counsel at the time, said after the deal was done, adding that the agreement would last in perpetuity. Things functioned relatively well until the Ben & Jerry's board weighed in on Israel, voting in 2021 to end ice cream sales in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the West Bank. The move sparked a backlash from Israeli political leaders. It also displeased some investors. Unilever eventually sold Ben & Jerry's' intellectual property rights in the territory to its Israeli distributor, who continued selling in the West Bank. It said in legal filings that it's still 'suffering the consequences' of the board's actions, noting that 'Ben & Jerry's and/or Unilever remain on at least nine states' anti-BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) black lists.' Advertisement With leadership changes at Unilever, there was a 'fundamental shift' in relations, said Chris Miller, former head of activism at Ben & Jerry's, who left earlier this year. While before, the Ben & Jerry's Social Mission team would inform Unilever of potentially controversial activism, it soon turned into an approval process, with Unilever reviewing — and often blocking — content, he said. The Ben & Jerry's board says it was barred from posting anything regarded as criticizing the Trump administration without a review. Unilever said in filings it was sensitive about issuing a statement on Palestinian refugees at the time because Iranian forces had recently attacked Israel, and because of the perception that anti-Israel statements promoted antisemitism. In its filings, Unilever said the brand's social mission is meant to be 'nonpartisan' and that the independent board doesn't have 'the unfettered right to advocate on any topic it wants on behalf of B&J or to embroil B&J and Unilever in highly controversial and divisive topics that put the businesses and their employees at risk.' The Ben & Jerry's board, for its part, says muzzling, suppressing, and undermining its activism hurts its reputation with customers. 'Authenticity is a central component of our DNA,' said Anuradha Mittal, the chair of the independent board, adding that the body would 'never allow' Ben & Jerry's to walk away from social justice issues. With assistance from Deirdre Hipwell and Dasha Afanasieva.
Mint
26-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Ben & Jerry's Fights Unilever on Social Justice in the Trump Era
As the US celebrated Black History Month in February, Ben & Jerry's crafted a social media post on keeping the racial-equality fight going even as President Donald Trump rolled back diversity initiatives. It never saw the light of day. The post was nixed by Ben & Jerry's' parent company Unilever Plc, people familiar with the matter said, like others supporting Palestinian refugees, defending the rights of student protesters and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Anglo-Dutch multinational's actions are raising questions about the future of the campaigning tradition it pledged to protect when it bought Ben & Jerry's a quarter century ago. Since then, a series of Unilever chief executive officers has tried to bring the brand's independent board to heel. As Unilever prepares to spin off its £15 billion ice-cream business, the Ben & Jerry's board, which defends its right to speak out, has dragged the group to court — fearing its social mission will meet the same fate as the failed product experiments in the label's 'flavor graveyard.' The battle has turned into a test case for companies' ability to support social causes in the Trump era. Firms ranging from McDonald's Corp. to JPMorgan Chase & Co. have rolled back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and Unilever itself has watered down some of its social and environmental pledges. The blocking of the Black History Month post came just weeks after Trump took office, with companies striving to avoid getting on the wrong side of the new administration. Court filings and interviews with insiders, former employees and investors show how ugly the tussle between the two sides has become as Ben & Jerry's' board insists it's going to fight the trend. 'Given Ben & Jerry's' history of taking stances on so many issues that pertain to moral and ethical spheres, it would be hard for me to imagine them taking any other stance,' said Dr. Ioannis Ioannou, an associate professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School. The battle is an ill-timed distraction for Unilever as its spinoff plan gets underway. It wants to get the ice-cream business, which also includes brands like Magnum and Walls, back on track under the watchful eye of activist investor Nelson Peltz. Unilever plans to run the business as a separate entity named The Magnum Ice Cream Company from July. It says the spinoff, expected later this year, won't threaten the role of Ben & Jerry's' board, with Magnum inheriting the governance structure. 'Investors will want reassurance that there will not be any further fallout,' Barclays said in a note on June 17. 'With the legal dispute still ongoing, there is still some tail risk. We are looking to understand what Magnum's plan and strategy is for the B&J brand going forward.' Peter ter Kulve, the ice-cream division president and the proposed candidate to be Magnum's CEO, was accused in filings by the Ben & Jerry's board of blocking posts on a Gaza ceasefire and describing an accord to buy almonds from Palestinian farmers as 'forced.' The board questioned 'whether the new entity will adhere to Unilever's contractual commitments.' Ter Kulve, who joined Unilever in 1988, has held senior roles at the group and was 'closely associated with Ben & Jerry's development for many years,' supporting its international expansion, the company said. The Ben & Jerry's board wants a judge to ratify its social-mission role ahead of the spinoff, while Unilever is seeking to ensure Magnum isn't burdened by legacy issues. In legal filings as part of a lawsuit that started in November in a New York court, the board accused Unilever of ousting Ben & Jerry's CEO David Stever for encouraging political activism. It also said the group added hurdles to payments for Palestinian produce, is holding back promised charity donations and is muzzling it from speaking out on issues it cares about. In response to queries from Bloomberg, Unilever said the board's 'recent unnecessarily inflammatory and divisive approach' goes contrary to the spirit of 'Peace, Love & Ice Cream' underlying Ben & Jerry's' product, economic and social mission it has supported for over two decades. Unilever said in legal filings that it continues to purchase almonds from Palestinian producers and that former CEO Stever resigned and wasn't fired. Stever didn't respond to requests for comment. The group said it withheld funds from some charities and sought amendments to public statements to avoid being seen as taking sides on the conflict in Gaza or supporting organizations that made divisive comments about Israel. It said it had agreed to a post calling for a ceasefire provided it also condemned terrorism and called for the release of hostages, which it said would align with the position of the late Pope Francis. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Unilever said the board overstepped its remit and that its directors are making decisions on highly controversial issues at the expense of the group's business. It also said the board doesn't have the authority to bring a legal case on behalf of Ben & Jerry's. The two sides are awaiting a decision from a judge on whether the lawsuit will proceed. Ben & Jerry's traces its political activism to its beginnings in 1978, when the founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield — who had been friends since their childhood in Merrick, New York — opened an ice-cream parlor in a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vermont, the home state of left-leaning Senator Bernie Sanders. The maker of such ice-cream flavors as Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia has a near-cult following. Its social agenda is so intimately tied to its identity that the founders expressed an interest in buying the brand back, although Unilever says it's not for sale. Being political is part of Ben & Jerry's brand strategy and 'consumers are aware of this,' says Kimberly Whitler, an associate professor at the Darden School of Business. 'There are some who may buy the product because of the activism and others who buy it despite its activism, but its position is well known,' she said. When Unilever bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000, the deal included an agreement allowing the ice-cream company to maintain an independent board charged with 'preserving and enhancing' its mission and safeguarding the brand's integrity, Ronald Soiefer, Ben & Jerry's general counsel at the time, said after the deal was done, adding that the agreement would last in perpetuity. Things functioned relatively well until the Ben & Jerry's board weighed in on Israel, voting in 2021 to end ice-cream sales in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the West Bank. The move sparked a backlash from Israeli political leaders. It also displeased some investors. Tom DiNapoli, comptroller in New York, said his state's pension fund was unloading $111 million in Unilever shares because Ben & Jerry's was engaging with boycotting activities. Terry Smith, the founder of Fundsmith and a Unilever shareholder, saw the activism as an example of a focus on issues unrelated to the group's core business. Unilever eventually sold Ben & Jerry's' intellectual property rights in the territory to its Israeli distributor, who continued selling in the West Bank. It said in legal filings that it's still 'suffering the consequences' of the board's actions, noting that 'Ben & Jerry's and/or Unilever remain on at least nine states' anti-BDS black lists.' With leadership changes at Unilever, there was a 'fundamental shift' in relations, said Chris Miller, former head of activism at Ben & Jerry's who left earlier this year. While before, the Ben & Jerry's Social Mission team would inform Unilever of potentially controversial activism, it soon turned into an approval process, with Unilever reviewing — and often blocking — content, he said. 'This felt clearly at odds with the spirit of the merger agreement,' he said. The Ben & Jerry's board says it was barred from posting anything regarded as criticizing the Trump administration without a review. In the UK, where its team worked with organizations helping refugees from Ukraine, Unilever's resistance to a similar push for refugees from Gaza put Ben & Jerry's in an awkward situation with its partners, according to people familiar with the matter. Unilever said in filings it was sensitive about issuing a statement on Palestinian refugees at the time because Iranian forces had recently attacked Israel, and because of the perception that anti-Israel statements promoted antisemitism. Although a Reuters report suggested that the group had threatened to halt funding to the Ben & Jerry's Foundation, which makes donations to social-justice organizations, for Unilever, the audit was triggered by the Magnum spinoff plan. The group pays the foundation about $5 million annually, Unilever CEO Fernando Fernandez told reporters in April. 'We have not made any threat,' he said. 'It's our responsibility to ensure that these funds are used properly.' In its filings, Unilever said the brand's social mission is meant to be 'nonpartisan' and that the independent board doesn't have 'the unfettered right to advocate on any topic it wants on behalf of B&J or to embroil B&J and Unilever in highly controversial and divisive topics that put the businesses and their employees at risk.' The Ben & Jerry's board for its part says muzzling, suppressing and undermining its activism hurts its reputation with customers. 'Authenticity is a central component of our DNA,' said Anuradha Mittal, the chair of the independent board, adding that the body would 'never allow' Ben & Jerry's to walk away from social-justice issues. For investors, meanwhile, the spat is unhelpful chatter. 'We would prefer not to have the negative noise,' said David Samra, managing director of Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc, a Unilever investor who supports the group's strategy. Over the long term, growth and profitability are what matter, not the 'short-term noise,' he said. With assistance from Deirdre Hipwell and Dasha Afanasieva. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
