Ben & Jerry’s Board Sparks Firestorm by Accusing Israel of “Genocide” – Deepening Rift with Unilever

By: Fern Sidman

The independent board of Ben & Jerry’s ignited a firestorm on Thursday after releasing a statement accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza, a move that has not only intensified criticism of the ice cream maker but also widened an already strained relationship with its parent company, Unilever.

The statement, described as one of the most aggressive corporate condemnations of Israel’s actions in the current conflict, declares that Ben & Jerry’s stands “with all who raise their voices against genocide in Gaza — from petition-signers to street marchers to those risking arrest.”

“When humanity is at stake, silence is not an option,” the board wrote. “Now is the time to speak truth to power.”

The New York Post reported that the declaration, first revealed by The Wall Street Journal, came amid intensifying global scrutiny over Israel’s military campaign and continued debate within corporate America over how far companies should go in weighing in on geopolitical controversies.

The reaction from Unilever was swift and deliberate. In a statement to The Wall Street Journal, and later cited extensively by The New York Post, a Unilever spokesperson emphasized: “The members of Ben & Jerry’s social mission board do not speak for anyone other than themselves. We call for peace in the region and for relief for all those whose lives have been impacted.”

The response shines a spotlight on the fraught, two-decade-long relationship between the Vermont-based activist ice cream brand and its London-headquartered multinational parent. The tension is baked into the DNA of their 2000 acquisition agreement, which uniquely granted Ben & Jerry’s an independent board to oversee the brand’s social mission and marketing — an arrangement that has repeatedly put it at odds with Unilever’s corporate strategy.

As The New York Post has reported, Thursday’s statement is the latest in a series of provocations by the board that have tested the limits of that independence.

The ice cream maker has never shied away from politically charged stances. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s made international headlines when it announced it would no longer sell its products in Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, calling such sales “inconsistent with our values.” The decision drew widespread backlash and triggered legal disputes across several U.S. states that accused Unilever of violating anti-boycott laws.

The New York Post report noted that the move caused Unilever significant financial and reputational damage, ultimately forcing the company to sell its Ben & Jerry’s Israeli operations to a local licensee — a workaround that allowed ice cream sales to continue throughout Israel, including the disputed territories. The sale was met with fierce resistance from the Ben & Jerry’s board, which sued Unilever, arguing the decision violated the acquisition agreement and eroded the board’s authority over the brand’s ethical positioning.

In legal filings obtained by The New York Post, Unilever accused the board of continuing to “embroil Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most divisive and polarizing topics of our time.”

The fallout has grown more complex in recent months. In March, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of forcing out its CEO due to the brand’s opposition to former President Donald Trump — a claim that further inflamed tensions.

In parallel, Unilever has demanded a fast-tracked audit of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, which receives approximately $5 million annually in corporate support. According to the information provided in The New York Post report, Unilever has threatened to pull this funding unless the board complies with greater oversight, suggesting that the ice cream brand’s political activism is beginning to carry tangible financial consequences.

Adding fuel to the fire, co-founder Ben Cohen has remained unapologetically outspoken. Earlier this month, he disrupted a U.S. Senate committee hearing on health policy, shouting: “Congress is paying to bomb poor kids in Gaza and paying for it by kicking poor kids off Medicaid in the US.” His removal by Capitol police only added to the spectacle, as was indicated in the report in The New York Post.

Ben & Jerry’s latest remarks come as Unilever prepares to spin off its entire ice cream division — including not just Ben & Jerry’s, but also brands like Magnum and Breyers. Analysts cited by The New York Post have speculated that the activism and political controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry’s have contributed to the decision, complicating Unilever’s efforts to streamline its portfolio and focus on more stable, high-growth categories.

Despite this, Unilever recently reaffirmed it has no intention of selling Ben & Jerry’s outright, even after an unsuccessful attempt by the brand’s original founders to repurchase the company.

Nevertheless, the gap between the two entities continues to widen. As The New York Post has reported, Unilever finds itself walking a tightrope — reluctant to quash Ben & Jerry’s brand identity while scrambling to insulate itself from the costly consequences of its board’s political statements.

For now, the ice cream giant’s Gaza comments appear to have deepened the schism between social mission and shareholder responsibility. Critics have lambasted the brand for inflaming an already volatile issue, while supporters argue that Ben & Jerry’s is living up to its ethical obligations.

But with pressure mounting from both investors and political leaders — and with renewed calls to boycott the brand circulating on social media — the ice cream maker’s activism may soon face its greatest test yet.

One thing remains clear: for Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever, the chill between them is far from over.