New Jersey threatens to divest from Ben & Jerry’s over Israel settlements pullout – Center East Monitor

The US state of New Jersey warned yesterday that it’ll contemplate divesting funds Ben & Jerry’s, together with its guardian firm, Unilever, because of the ice-cream companies choice to cease promoting ice cream within the unlawful settlements positioned within the occupied Palestinian territories.

“No pension fund property could also be invested within the firm, and DOI shall take acceptable motion to promote or divest any present pension fund investments,” stated the Director of the New Jersey Division of Funding, Shoaib Khan.

Khan stated that the division is working with an unbiased advisor to assessment the actions taken by Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever “to find out whether or not such actions constituted a boycott of Israel or firms working in Israel or Israeli-controlled territory.”

“Following this assessment, the division reached a preliminary dedication that Unilever’s actions did the truth is represent such a boycott and despatched a letter to Unilever notifying the corporate of its provisional dedication,” added Khan.

In a letter to the British-based firm, the state’s Treasury Division warned Unilever it had 90 days to show it had not engaged in a boycott that concerned Israel or Israeli-occupied territories earlier than any divestment motion is taken.

READ: Israel must change tactics against BDS, says ambassador

The global ice cream brand introduced in July that it could be ending the sale of its merchandise in settlements based mostly within the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

New Jersey is certainly one of seven states which are both within the technique of divesting from Unilever or contemplating the transfer. Different cities embody New York, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Maryland and Rhode Island, in line with the Jewish Telegraph Company.

Following the backlash, Ben & Jerry’s founders said that they’re “proud Jews”, that Israel was certainly one of their first abroad markets and that they’re “supporters of the State of Israel”.

Nonetheless, they conveyed in an opinion piece revealed by the New York Times: “It is doable to help Israel and oppose a few of its insurance policies, simply as we have opposed insurance policies of the US authorities.”