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’s going to take into account divesting funds Ben & Jerry’s, together with its dad or mum firm, Unilever, on account of the ice-cream corporations determination to cease promoting ice cream within the unlawful settlements situated within the occupied Palestinian territories.

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

Khan mentioned that the division is working with an unbiased marketing consultant 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 willpower that Unilever’s actions did actually represent such a boycott and despatched a letter to Unilever notifying the corporate of its provisional willpower,” 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 will be ending the sale of its merchandise in settlements primarily based within the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

New Jersey is considered one of seven states which might be both within the means of divesting from Unilever or contemplating the transfer. Different cities embrace New York, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Maryland and Rhode Island, in keeping with the Jewish Telegraph Company.

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

Nevertheless, they conveyed in an opinion piece printed 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.”