Arizona has sold $ 93 million in Unilever bonds and plans to sell the remaining $ 50 million it has invested in the global consumer goods company due to the decision of subsidiary Ben & Jerry to stop selling its ice cream in the territories occupied by Israel, the latest in a series of state actions with anti-Israeli boycott laws.
Investment moves state treasurer Kimberly Yee, who announced this week that she was bound by a 2019 state law banning Arizona government agencies from holding investments or making more than $ 100,000 in business with any company that boycotts Israel or the their territories.
Arizona appears to be the first of 35 states with anti-boycott laws or regulations to be completely disengaged from Unilever following Ben & Jerry’s actions. Illinois warned the company in July it had 90 days after the investment board met to change course or it would also sell. Florida and other states have taken similar steps, according to IAC For Action, the political and legislative arm of the Israeli-American Council.
Although Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s is owned by London-based Unilever, it maintains its own independent board, which Unilever said makes its own decision about its social mission. Ben & Jerry’s announced on July 19 that maintaining its presence in the occupied territories was “incompatible with our values.”
Ben & Jerry’s decision provoked a strong backlash from Israel, which pledged to “act aggressively” in response to the measure, including also urging U.S. governors to punish the company under anti-government laws. boycott. Arizona and 34 other states have anti-boycott laws in Israel.
U.S. groups supporting Israel are divided on whether it is appropriate to back Unilever over Ben & Jerry’s decision. The Israeli-American Council urged governors to act through IAC For Action.
The ICA director for action, Joseph Sabag, called Israel’s boycotts anti-Semitic and said it was important to fight them at the state level.
“The Israeli-American community is sensitive to it, because I would say that more than other parts of the American Jewish community, we experienced the national origin aspect of anti-Semitism in a more pronounced way,” Sabag said Friday. “That’s why we’re really very proactive. It is our children who are affected by this in the classrooms and they are scared and intimidated and feel harassed. … Undoubtedly, this is the interest of our community in the matter. ‘
But the head of J Street, a pro-Israel organization based in Washington, DC that supports a two-state solution, backed Ben & Jerry’s decision and said punishing the company is “very dangerous. “.
“It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israeli policy or not to sell ice cream in illegal settlements,” President Jeremy Ben-Ami tweeted in July. “It’s actually a really pro-Israel decision.”
Anti-boycott laws face judicial challenges, as did those in Arizona after its enactment in 2016. A Flagstaff lawyer he hired to help defend jailed people sued on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the law infringed their rights to freedom of expression.
A U.S. district judge in Arizona blocked execution while the case was proceeding, but the legislature changed the law, so it only applied to contracts worth more than $ 100,000, effectively ending the case because it no longer applied to the Flagstaff man. The state was ordered to pay $ 115,000 for his attorney’s fees.
In Arkansas, the editor of a weekly newspaper sued the state law blockade for similar reasons. A trial judge dismissed the case, ruling that “the boycott of Israel is neither an intrinsically expressive speech nor conduct” protected by the First Amendment. But a three-judge tribunal of the U.S. Circuit’s 8th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the Arkansas Times’ lawsuit in February, finding that “supporting or promoting boycotts in Israel is constitutionally protected … though that the law requires government contractors to refrain from this constitutionally protected activity. “
The sentence is not the last word: in June, the judges of the 8th Circuit agreed to hear the case and released the decision of the group of three judges. They are ready to hear arguments about the case later this month.
Both cases were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Meanwhile, in Arizona, Yee wrote to Unilever’s investor relations department on Sept. 2 to tell the company that while Ben & Jerry’s operates independently, Arizona’s legislation would force the sale of Unilever assets if the decision is not rescinded.
“I gave Unilever PLC, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, an ultimatum: reverse Ben & Jerry’s action or strip Ben & Jerry’s to comply with Arizona law or face the consequences,” he said Yee, a Republican who is a gubernatorial candidate, said in a statement. “They chose the latter.”
Unilever said in an Aug. 2 letter to Deputy Lieutenant Mark Swenson that it has never supported boycotts in Israel, commonly referred to as Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS), but that Ben & Jerry’s operates independently. The company made no additional comments.
Arizona investments were made in bonds and commercial papers held in the state’s short-term fixed-income investment fund.
The Arizona law enacted in 201 6 and revised in 2019 had broad bipartisan support and was signed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. He tweeted that Ben & Jerry’s decision “is discrimination.”
“Arizona will not do business with a company that boycotts Israel; in 2016 and 2019 I signed bills to make sure,” the tweet said. “Arizona is with Israel.”