[MENA] The Middle East and North Africa

DarkPrimus

I have not been keeping this thread regularly updated with the crimes of the Israeli Occupation Forces because it's exhausting enough just following them on my news feeds. But suffice to say, the crimes against Palestine and its people have continued unabated.

The other day, veteran Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed by Israeli forces while covering an Israeli military raid in Jenin City. She was among other journalists at the time, all of whom were wearing vests clearly labeled PRESS. There are videos of the actual shooting online, which I am not linking for obvious reasons.

The Israeli forces, of course, initially both denied responsibility and blamed Palestinian gunfire for her death, despite the other journalists present at the time saying there were no Palestinian fighters presentand debunking claims of where the gunfire came from, and Israel itself now investigating a soldier over the incident.

Her funeral procession in Jerusalem just ended, though mourners are still gathered. Israeli occupation forces have beaten mourners and deployed tear gas, smashed the windows of the car carrying her coffin, and even almost knocked the coffin to the ground off the shoulders of pallbearers.

https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1525072444385636352

"The Israeli army is asking people if they are Christian or Muslim. If you’re Muslim you weren’t allowed in." - @ajimran

Israeli occupation forces are attacking Palestinians during the funeral of killed Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

https://twitter.com/Rushdibbc/status/1525114366403743744

The closest video of the #Israeli police suppressing the funeral procession of Shireen Abu Aqleh as the coffin was leaving the French hospital towards the cemetery

Elki

“Shireen Abu-Aqlah, Al Jazeera, Ramallah, Palestine” is one of those phrases burned in memory. There’s no shortage of people being killed by the Israeli army, but I’m still in disbelief that happened; she been doing this before I even started watching news. She spent a lifetime doing good; reporting in one of the most difficult places to be journalist in.

Lanz

Fucking Fascists. How much of a monster do you have to be to go raid a fucking funeral rite and start kicking the legs out from under the pallbearers?

shryke

What was the excuse they were using for beating up a funeral procession? I haven't seen anything so far.

jungleroomx

shryke wrote: »

What was the excuse they were using for beating up a funeral procession? I haven't seen anything so far.

Same bullshit our cops use to start riots.

AP News Story wrote:

Police said the crowd at the hospital was chanting “nationalist incitement,” ignored calls to stop and threw stones at them. “The policemen were forced to act,” police said. They issued a video in which a commander outside the hospital warns the crowd that police will come in if they don’t stop their incitement and “nationalist songs.”

DarkPrimus

Lanz wrote: »

Fucking Fascists. How much of a monster do you have to be to go raid a fucking funeral rite and start kicking the legs out from under the pallbearers?

Can't have a funeral procession of Christians and Muslims peacefully mourning together - such displays of solidarity undermine the propaganda that it's all religious extremist strife that's tearing apart the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

shryke

jungleroomx wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

What was the excuse they were using for beating up a funeral procession? I haven't seen anything so far.

Same bullshit our cops use to start riots.

AP News Story wrote:

Police said the crowd at the hospital was chanting “nationalist incitement,” ignored calls to stop and threw stones at them. “The policemen were forced to act,” police said. They issued a video in which a commander outside the hospital warns the crowd that police will come in if they don’t stop their incitement and “nationalist songs.”

"nationalist incitement" really gives the game away. Poor form there by the police.

DarkPrimus

Displaying the Palestinian flag is illegal, you see. Even at the funeral of a Palestinian-American. 🙄

Elki

I chose to not watch the videos, but I ended up seeing this picture from the funeral. This a failure to provide the minimum of human decency and letting her be buried in dignity.

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1525153403646656513

Associated Press, American wire service.

DarkPrimus

Even calling them "demonstrators" is loaded language. It was a funeral. They were mourners.

Captain Inertia

The press has been incredibly fucking awful on reporting this, just gulping down the oppressors’ takes without any examination at all

Kaputa

Captain Inertia wrote: »

The press has been incredibly fucking awful on reporting this, just gulping down the oppressors’ takes without any examination at all

The American press at best gives a misleading "both sides" account of the situation or at worst gives us the "Israel as a beacon of light under siege by backwards terrorists" narrative. And I mean the liberal papers and such, obviously the right wing press is just unreadable offensive racist shit.

When I was in college I attended a lecture by a left wing Israeli expat history professor on the differing media coverage of the Israelis Palestinian conflict. He presented comprehensive summaries of reporting from the US (totally divorced from reality), UK (comparably bad, maybe slightly less so sometimes), France and Germany (more reasonable on the whole), and Arab countries (pro-Palestine, but this translates to more truthful and accurate given the nature of the conflict). It was enlightening and I was impressed by this Jewish Israeli man's commitment to anti-colonialism and justice. He even agreed with me that a one state solution/end to apartheid was at that point a better solution than the more commonly discussed two-state framework, which even my left wing UMaine professors who attended the talk did not agree with me on.

Regarding the attack on the funeral procession, I don't have much to say, it's horrifying and disgusting and fills me with impotent rage and sadness at my powerlessness to do anything about it beyond continuing to advocate boycott, divestment, and sanctions.

Mayabird

Protests are spreading in Iran again. While food prices are rising around the world and the hunger crisis building up, Iran cut many food and fuel subsidies, so the price of some staples jumped up to 300% nearly overnight, which is not very affordable to the masses of people in poverty.

Protests have been going on and off for the last few years in Iran due to, well, a lot of reasons, such as an entire river drying up and people being without water. Iran usually puts down protests with heavy violence - at least four protesters have been killed in the current round.

Iran has tight control of its media and internet so it's hard to get good reports of what's going on, but expect more unrest across the world due to the coming food crisis.

DarkPrimus

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1529166851153985536

CNN investigation: New evidence suggests Shireen Abu Akleh was killed in targeted attack by Israeli forces -
CNN

The Israeli military says it is not clear who fired the fatal shot. In a preliminary inquiry, the army said there was a possibility Abu Akleh was hit either by indiscriminate Palestinian gunfire, or by an Israeli sniper positioned about 200 meters (about 656 feet) away in an exchange of fire with Palestinian gunmen — though neither Israel nor anyone else has provided evidence showing armed Palestinians within a clear line of fire from Abu Akleh.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on May 19 that it had not yet decided whether to pursue a criminal investigation into Abu Akleh’s death. On Monday, the Israeli military’s top lawyer, Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, said in a speech that under the military’s policy, a criminal investigation is not automatically launched if a person is killed in the “midst of an active combat zone,” unless there is credible and immediate suspicion of a criminal offense. United States lawmakers, the United Nations and ​the international community ​have all called for an independent probe.

But an investigation by CNN offers new evidence — including two videos of the scene of the shooting — that there was no active combat, nor any Palestinian militants, near Abu Akleh in the moments leading up to her death. Videos obtained by CNN, corroborated by testimony from eight eyewitnesses, an audio forensic analyst and an explosive weapons expert, suggest that Abu Akleh was shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces.

The full article has lengthy detailed descriptions of the video evidence and eyewitness accounts demonstrating how transparently false Israel's initial statements about the shooting were.

The question, as ever, is what - if any -consequences will Israel face for its actions, in this case the deliberate targeting and killing of an American journalist?

Gundi

The answer is none. The political situation in the US is not such as is likely to to lead to any significant foreign policy changes regarding Israel. Internationally America's attention is still drawn to Europe and Ukraine, and domestically we're consumed by the issues of inflation, abortion, and general government gridlock.

So like, expect a few representatives to maybe say it wasn't great and then be censured by their peers for saying anything.

Solar

Yeah zero consequences is what I'm expecting. I mean its an apartheid, authoritarian, ethno-nationalist state, and it's getting worse.

DarkPrimus

An independent commission established by the UN Human Rights Council has released a new report, and their findings may not surprise you.

“Ending the occupation alone will not be sufficient,” according to the report released on Tuesday, urging that additional action be taken to ensure the equal enjoyment of human rights for Palestinians.

The report cites evidence that Israel has “no intention of ending the occupation”.

Israel is pursuing “complete control” over what the report calls the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which was taken by Israel in a 1967 war and later annexed in a move never recognised by the international community.

The Israeli government, the commission said, has been “acting to alter the demography through the maintenance of a repressive environment for Palestinians and a favourable environment for Israeli settlers”.
...
The UN inquiry and report was prompted by the 11-day Israeli military offensive in May 2021 during which more than 260 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, and 13 people died in Israel.
...
The inquiry’s mandate included investigation of alleged human rights abuses before and after Israel’s onslaught against Gaza, and sought to also investigate the “root causes” of the conflict.

Hamas welcomed the report and urged the prosecution of Israeli leaders in what it said were “crimes” against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian Authority also praised the report and called for accountability “in a manner that puts an end to Israel’s impunity”.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the report “a waste of money and effort” that amounted to a witch-hunt.

Polaritie

DarkPrimus wrote: »

An independent commission established by the UN Human Rights Council has released a new report, and their findings may not surprise you.

“Ending the occupation alone will not be sufficient,” according to the report released on Tuesday, urging that additional action be taken to ensure the equal enjoyment of human rights for Palestinians.

The report cites evidence that Israel has “no intention of ending the occupation”.

Israel is pursuing “complete control” over what the report calls the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which was taken by Israel in a 1967 war and later annexed in a move never recognised by the international community.

The Israeli government, the commission said, has been “acting to alter the demography through the maintenance of a repressive environment for Palestinians and a favourable environment for Israeli settlers”.
...
The UN inquiry and report was prompted by the 11-day Israeli military offensive in May 2021 during which more than 260 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, and 13 people died in Israel.
...
The inquiry’s mandate included investigation of alleged human rights abuses before and after Israel’s onslaught against Gaza, and sought to also investigate the “root causes” of the conflict.

Hamas welcomed the report and urged the prosecution of Israeli leaders in what it said were “crimes” against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian Authority also praised the report and called for accountability “in a manner that puts an end to Israel’s impunity”.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the report “a waste of money and effort” that amounted to a witch-hunt.

"acting to alter the demography"

Look, you can just say genocide already.

Jealous Deva

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/world/middleeast/israel-parliament-dissolve-elections.html

The government of Israel has fallen. Again.

Elections in November. What’s next? Netanyahu’s return with the backing of even farther right parties? A new fragile coalition? More elections?

Its probably going to be more elections.

DarkPrimus

Via NPR, Ben & Jerry's has figured out how to keep selling their ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories despite pledging to end sales.

A year after Ben & Jerry's said it would no longer sell its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, its corporate owner, Unilever, has found a new way to keep sales going. It's selling its Israeli Ben & Jerry's operation to the local company that's been distributing it all along.
...
Ben & Jerry's flavors and brand name will stay the same, just won't appear in English. Ben & Jerry's in the U.S. will get to say it's not selling in the West Bank, an Israeli company is. And Israelis in the West Bank will get to still have their Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eat it, too.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Ringo

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Via NPR, Ben & Jerry's has figured out how to keep selling their ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories despite pledging to end sales.

A year after Ben & Jerry's said it would no longer sell its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, its corporate owner, Unilever, has found a new way to keep sales going. It's selling its Israeli Ben & Jerry's operation to the local company that's been distributing it all along.
...
Ben & Jerry's flavors and brand name will stay the same, just won't appear in English. Ben & Jerry's in the U.S. will get to say it's not selling in the West Bank, an Israeli company is. And Israelis in the West Bank will get to still have their Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eat it, too.

The headline there is "Unilever fucks over Ben and Jerry's". But seeing as how this all started because Ben and Jerry's has contract clauses allowing them to dictate the use of their brand by Unilever, the question is can Ben and Jerry's fight this, and will they?

If Ben and Jerry's does nothing in response then you can lay blame at their feet, not before

asur

Ringo wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Via NPR, Ben & Jerry's has figured out how to keep selling their ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories despite pledging to end sales.

A year after Ben & Jerry's said it would no longer sell its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, its corporate owner, Unilever, has found a new way to keep sales going. It's selling its Israeli Ben & Jerry's operation to the local company that's been distributing it all along.
...
Ben & Jerry's flavors and brand name will stay the same, just won't appear in English. Ben & Jerry's in the U.S. will get to say it's not selling in the West Bank, an Israeli company is. And Israelis in the West Bank will get to still have their Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eat it, too.

The headline there is "Unilever fucks over Ben and Jerry's". But seeing as how this all started because Ben and Jerry's has contract clauses allowing them to dictate the use of their brand by Unilever, the question is can Ben and Jerry's fight this, and will they?

If Ben and Jerry's does nothing in response then you can lay blame at their feet, not before

I find it unlikely that this doesn't work for Unilever. I would expect they either have agreement from Ben and Jerry's on this or the workaround is able to bypass whatever contract agreement they have.

shryke

asur wrote: »

Ringo wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Via NPR, Ben & Jerry's has figured out how to keep selling their ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories despite pledging to end sales.

A year after Ben & Jerry's said it would no longer sell its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, its corporate owner, Unilever, has found a new way to keep sales going. It's selling its Israeli Ben & Jerry's operation to the local company that's been distributing it all along.
...
Ben & Jerry's flavors and brand name will stay the same, just won't appear in English. Ben & Jerry's in the U.S. will get to say it's not selling in the West Bank, an Israeli company is. And Israelis in the West Bank will get to still have their Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eat it, too.

The headline there is "Unilever fucks over Ben and Jerry's". But seeing as how this all started because Ben and Jerry's has contract clauses allowing them to dictate the use of their brand by Unilever, the question is can Ben and Jerry's fight this, and will they?

If Ben and Jerry's does nothing in response then you can lay blame at their feet, not before

I find it unlikely that this doesn't work for Unilever. I would expect they either have agreement from Ben and Jerry's on this or the workaround is able to bypass whatever contract agreement they have.

Yeah, it does not look like there's anything Ben and Jerry can actually do about this.

The original poster linking the story is being super misleading in their description of the article.

DarkPrimus

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

Fencingsax

Yeah, that quote reads "Unilever is abiding by the letter of the deal, so Ben and Jerry's can do exactly diddly and squat about it"

shryke

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

Yes, that quote literally support what people are saying and shows that your original framing of the article is misleading to the point that it's claiming basically the opposite of what is going on.

Unilever is doing this against the wishes of Ben and Jerry's.

Phoenix-D

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

DarkPrimus

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Fencingsax

I mean, if we're talking about defending corps, why are you assuming Unilever, which is basically another Nestle mixed with a cosmetics company is not to blame?

Ringo

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Then don't buy Unilever products, of which Ben and Jerry's happens to be one.

DarkPrimus

Ringo wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Then don't buy Unilever products, of which Ben and Jerry's happens to be one.

Indeed.

I had previously posted in this thread about Ben & Jerry's suspending sales in the occupied territories in response to public outcry. It's perfectly relevant for me to provide an update about it in this thread.

Ringo

I agree with that! I just think your justified outrage is at the wrong target. I feel Unilever is the clear villain here, determined to prevent Ben and Jerry's from doing (continuing, I think? It's been months since they stopped sales) the right thing.

Unilever owning the Ben and Jerry's brand muddles things, and it does form the question of whether Ben and Jerry's is going to continue to fight Unilever on this, but at this current time Unilever is the one supporting evil people buying ice cream

Tastyfish

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

I reckon Ben and Jerry's would love for you to tell them that in a letter, because you (and others like you) boycotting them is the only way that Unilever backs off.

Bogart

Sometimes, just sometimes, someone will disagree with you about a particular thing but NOT, and I know this is incredibly difficult to believe, but they will NOT be doing it in bad faith. If someone is arguing that corporate entity A is, in this particular case, more responsible than corporate entity B it's JUST POSSIBLE that they might actually think that's the case. This does not mean they are shills for corporate entity B, or that they even support corporate entity B in other matters.

I know! It sounds CRAZY, but someone can state an opinion that does not chime 100% with yours and yet NOT be doing so dishonestly or for ulterior motives that hint at a dark conspiracy of corporate PR.

HappylilElf

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Ringo wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Then don't buy Unilever products, of which Ben and Jerry's happens to be one.

Indeed.

I had previously posted in this thread about Ben & Jerry's suspending sales in the occupied territories in response to public outcry. It's perfectly relevant for me to provide an update about it in this thread.

That you apparently have an axe to grind against, of all fucking things, Ben and Jerry's god damned ice cream is just

*chef's kiss*

FANTOMAS

HappylilElf wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Ringo wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Then don't buy Unilever products, of which Ben and Jerry's happens to be one.

Indeed.

I had previously posted in this thread about Ben & Jerry's suspending sales in the occupied territories in response to public outcry. It's perfectly relevant for me to provide an update about it in this thread.

That you apparently have an axe to grind against, of all fucking things, Ben and Jerry's god damned ice cream is just

*chef's kiss*

He does seem to have an axe to grind, with companies that do business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. I dont understand why that deserves a *chef´s kiss*.

shryke

FANTOMAS wrote: »

HappylilElf wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Ringo wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Then don't buy Unilever products, of which Ben and Jerry's happens to be one.

Indeed.

I had previously posted in this thread about Ben & Jerry's suspending sales in the occupied territories in response to public outcry. It's perfectly relevant for me to provide an update about it in this thread.

That you apparently have an axe to grind against, of all fucking things, Ben and Jerry's god damned ice cream is just

*chef's kiss*

He does seem to have an axe to grind, with companies that do business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. I dont understand why that deserves a *chef´s kiss*.

Considering he flat out lied about the contents of the article he linked so that he could make it a story about how Ben and Jerry's is bad rather then about how Unilever is bad, no actually, it seems like the beef is with the two ice cream guys. I don't know, maybe he's lactose intolerant.

Bogart

Enough with the personal stuff.

Phoenix-D

Tastyfish wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

Phoenix-D wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I am aware you are all running defense for B&J's indistinguisable from the HR lines in the transcript:

Omar Shakir works for Human Rights Watch and advised Ben & Jerry's on its position against sales in the West Bank. He sees something positive in the deal.

OMAR SHAKIR: Unilever has tried to undermine the Ben & Jerry's decision by selling that business to an Israeli distributor or supplier. But that, you know, does not change the reality that Ben & Jerry's isn't operating, isn't doing business, you know, in settlements.

They aren't doing business there! It's just their product being sold by a business there!

You know before you accuse people of "running defense" for a company you should maybe check if they're you know

right

Because you have assumed that Ben and Jerry's can do something about this and are choosing not to. Then you operate as of that assumption is rock hard fact and act like a goose to anyone pointing out it isn't.

https://www.ft.com/content/6254a233-1954-4536-9620-6bf2d33d27fd

The protest by Ben & Jerry’s over Unilever’s decision appears to show the limits of the brand’s independence — although it can dissent publicly it did not threaten any action in response.

Unilever on Wednesday referred to the acquisition agreement, saying that the UK group had “reserved primary responsibility for financial and operational decisions and therefore has the right to enter this arrangement” with Zinger.

Could there be something they could do? Maybe! But everything we have says probably not.

Let me speak very plainly here:
If this distinction is enough for your conscience, then more power to you, but it does not make a difference to me as someone who does not wish to support a company that is doing business within the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

I reckon Ben and Jerry's would love for you to tell them that in a letter, because you (and others like you) boycotting them is the only way that Unilever backs off.

Well maybe not

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/05/ben-jerrys-sues-unilever-israeli-deal

The complaint filed in the US district court in Manhattan said the sale announced on 29 June threatened to undermine the integrity of the Ben & Jerry’s brand, which Ben & Jerry’s board retained independence to protect when Unilever acquired the company in 2000.

An injunction against transferring the business and related trademarks to Avi Zinger, who runs American Quality Products Ltd, was essential to “protect the brand and social integrity Ben & Jerry’s has spent decades building”, the complaint said.

Ben & Jerry’s said its board voted 5-2 to sue, with the two Unilever appointees dissenting.