Jack, agreed. I wouldn’t call Unilever’s move a coverup though. The policy set by the Ben & Jerry’s Board to pull out from the territories, set years earlier, was I believe known. Unilever stepped in to add to the press release to clarify that there was not a decision to pull out of Israel altogether (which was true). The objections to that by the Ben & Jerry’s Board Chairperson Anuradha Mittal indicates an intention which was not the formal policy of the Board and which Unilever would not have known about.

Additionally, I would argue that the Ben & Jerry’s Board would be breaking its fiduciary duties by implementing such a restriction of sales. They must act in the interest of their shareholders, and the single shareholder is Unilever. Denying sales revenue to the shareholder for political reasons is a breach (unless Unilever gives its ok). Making new flavours, statements etc. as Ben & Jerry’s usually does on other issues is not a breach. For this breach, Unilever has grounds to remove the Ben & Jerry’s Board or at least the Chairperson.

The Ben & Jerry’s Board went way too far and there is clear antisemitism occurring. Unilever allowed Ben & Jerry’s to withdraw from the territories and can be punished or praised for that by consumers depending on their political views. Accusation of antisemitism against Unilever are essential vicarious liability – they are responsible for the antisemitism of their subsidiary. That’s a fair argument if they take no action now that the revelations about the Ben & Jerry’s board’s views and itnentions have surfaced.