Key Takeaways
- Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen is back in the headlines with a “Flavor for Palestine,” a cynical PR move posing as activism.
- Media outlets continue to misreport Ben & Jerry’s 2021 dispute with Unilever, falsely portraying it as corporate censorship.
- The truth: Unilever simply enforced the merger agreement Ben & Jerry’s founders signed.
Just over two years after Hamas’ October 7 massacre and only weeks into a fragile ceasefire, Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen is back – finding new ways to capitalize on the Palestinian cause.
In an Instagram video filmed in what looks like a staged home kitchen, the entrepreneur — wearing an apron — announced he’s developing a “flavor for peace in Palestine.” The watermelon-flavored sorbet, he explained, symbolizes Palestinian solidarity.
“I’m doing what they couldn’t,” Cohen declared. “I’m making a watermelon ice cream that calls for permanent peace in Palestine.”
It’s as cynical as it sounds – a performative gesture designed for social media applause. But what’s even more irritating is the coverage that followed.
Major news outlets reported Cohen’s stunt as a principled act of conscience, omitting the years of legal and factual context that make this story so much more absurd.
The BBC reported: “In a letter shared on social media by fellow co-founder Ben Cohen, Mr Greenfield said the Cherry Garcia maker had lost its independence after Unilever put a halt to its social activism.”
According to Reuters: “Cohen said Magnum is censoring Ben & Jerry’s ability to speak out on progressive causes like Palestinian rights and U.S. immigration.”
And The Independent confidently asserted: “The co-founders have an acquisition agreement that allows independent activism through the board.”
All of this is, quite simply, distortion.
The truth lies in a 2000 merger agreement, when Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s for $326 million. The deal divided authority: Unilever retained control over the company’s “financial and operational aspects,” while Ben & Jerry’s independent board was tasked with upholding its “social mission.”
What the agreement did not do, however, was grant the board the power to withdraw from countries or territories on political grounds. Schedule 6.14, the section outlining Ben & Jerry’s lofty “social objectives,” lists everything from “sustainable agriculture” to sourcing Vermont dairy – but geopolitics doesn’t appear once.
Even that “independence” was qualified. The board’s freedom is limited to actions deemed “commercially reasonable.” And boycotting a market isn’t exactly commercially reasonable.
And yet, for nearly four years, Cohen, Greenfield, and much of the press have ignored it – spinning a fairy tale of corporate censorship.
Ben & Jerry’s has never been muzzled by Unilever – it has freely championed dozens of social causes over the past two decades: from climate change to racial justice, from voting rights to refugee protection. It has released flavors like Justice ReMix’d, Save Our Swirled, and Empower Mint.
Cohen and Greenfield built their empire on peace, love, and quirky social messaging – and it worked. But somewhere along the way, they confused marketing slogans for moral authority. And now, they’ve become exactly what they once claimed to despise: privileged activists using empty gestures to moralize about conflicts they barely understand.
And the media have been only too willing to play along – continually misrepresenting the original Ben & Jerry’s dispute as a story of noble founders silenced by corporate power, rather than businessmen held to the contract they signed.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
