Biden statement angers everyone
In a very on-brand move from the Biden administration, the State Department put out a statement on the Shireen Abu Akleh investigation that somehow managed to anger nearly everyone. The U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC) said the fatal bullet probably came from an IDF gun, but also stated that it was unintentional and merely the “result of tragic circumstances” as they IDF says it was carrying out a raid against Palestinian Islamic Jihad factions in Jenin at the time. The United States won’t say it directly but the implication is that Abu Akleh’s death was “collateral damage.”
Israel’s government is upset that the United States is publicly acknowledging they probably killed a journalist. The inevitable qualifier is certainly appeasing no one. “We told the U.S. that if the test is inconclusive then the statement should be inconclusive,” an Israeli official told Axios’ Barak Ravid. “On Sunday night and Monday morning, there was a long argument over every word and every comma in the State Department statement,” said another.
Those looking for justice were obviously even more upset. Abu Akleh’s family put out a statement saying that the U.S. was trying to “spin the narrative” in favor of Israel. “The truth is that the Israeli military killed Shireen according to policies that view all Palestinians – civilian, press or otherwise – as legitimate targets, and we were expecting that an American investigation would focus on finding the responsible parties and holding them accountable, not parsing over barely-relevant details and then assuming good faith on behalf of a recalcitrant and hostile occupying power,” it reads. “In other words, all available evidence suggests that a US citizen was the subject of an extrajudicial killing by a foreign government that receives billions of dollars in American military aid each year to perpetuate a prolonged and entrenched military occupation of millions of Palestinians.”
AP’s Matt Lee kicked off July 6’s State Department briefing with questions about the fallout. No one was happy about the statement. How could the U.S. imply the IDF was responsible while not assigning blame? State Dept. spokesman Ned Price answered in some detail but hit all the same beats as the original statement. There was “no reason to believe that it was an intentional killing.”
Al Quds’ Said Arikat wanted to know if the soldiers had been interviewed. Israel keeps meticulous records on their military and they record every shot that gets fired, so did they get any information on that level? Price wouldn’t say, but he implied that the IDF would be able to hold itself accountable going forward.
Price: Well, you heard from us similarly in the statement yesterday that we will remain engaged with Israel and the PA on next steps and to urge accountability. We do want to see accountability. We would expect accountability in any case involving a wrongful death, and this clearly was the case of a wrongful death. Our goal – and what we believe is the collective goal of the parties – is to see to it that something akin to this, the killing of a journalist in a conflict zone, can’t happen again, must not happen again.
Arikat: But it happened again. It happened again in Hebron. It happened again only two weeks after.
Price: And Said, the IDF, as a professional military outfit currently in the midst of its own investigation, is in a position or soon will be in a position to consider steps to further safeguard non-combatants. That is something we have consistently encouraged not only to the IDF, but in conflict zones around the world. And as part of accountability, the IDF will be in a position to consider additional steps that would safeguard civilians and non-combatants in the case of a conflict zone.
Price also wouldn’t say whether the investigation is over, but stressed that the U.S. wants to see accountability. That’s a ridiculous statement to anyone who has followed this story over the last two months.
Ben & Jerry’s sues Unilever
In the last newsletter we broke down how Ben & Jerry’s parent company Unilever sold off its Israeli ice cream business. It’s a move that disappointed Ben & Jerry’s as they had vowed to stop selling their product in illegal settlements last summer. Since then Ben & Jerry’s have sued Unilever in an attempt to stop the sale.
As we pointed out last week, this story is a little more complicated than some have framed it. Ben & Jerry’s were never planning on getting out of Israel altogether, they simply said they wanted to stop selling their product in what’s called the occupied territories. Their original statement also made it clear that their move wasn’t connected to the BDS movement. After the announcement activists continued to press for more details and demand that they leave the country altogether.
These facts didn’t stop pro-Israel lawmakers and groups from claiming that Ben & Jerry’s was embracing a boycott and it definitely didn’t stop them from attacking the company. There were calls for sanctions against Unilever. A group of attorney generals demanded action. Multiple states divested any economic connections from Unilever. So it makes sense that they’re now declaring the sale some sort of epic defeat against the dark forces of BDS. “The Ben & Jerry’s factory in Israel is a microcosm of the diversity of Israeli society,” tweeted Yair Lapid in a particularly confounding statement. “Today’s victory is a victory for all those who know that the struggle against BDS is, first and foremost, a struggle for partnership and dialogue, and against discrimination and hate.” Similar sentiments were expressed by Avi Zinger, the American Quality Products owner who bought the Israeli business. “There is no place for discrimination in the commercial sale of ice cream,” he said. “BDS lost. I now have the right to sell Ben & Jerry’s using its Hebrew and Arabic name… forever. This is a victory for those who seek cooperation and coexistence, and a resounding defeat for discrimination.”
Unilever has also framed things this way. “Antisemitism has no place in any society,” the company said in a statement after the sale. “We have never expressed any support for the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement and have no intention of changing that position.”
It’s easy to understand why a company trying to make money wants to reiterate its rejection of BDS, as they’ve faced such farcical attacks over the concept. More interesting is their reference to antisemitism. They’re not only implying the BDS movement is antisemitic (which it isn’t of course), they also seem be saying that Ben & Jerry’s might be antisemitic, or was at least acting that way when it made a vague commitment to eventually getting out of illegal settlements. At any rate, Israel seems appeased if not impressed. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Idan Roll tweeted a picture of him shaking hands with Unilever CEO Alan Jope with the caption, “Thank you for managing the Ben & Jerry’s affair and finding a solution that expresses both the Unilever values and a strong statement against the boycott movement.”
Zinger is openly bragging that the ice cream will continue to be sold throughout Israel and joked with Haaretz that he might rename Chunky Monkey “Judea and Samaria”.
“Ben & Jerry’s is mine forever, plus I can make whatever flavor I want, collaborate with whichever Israeli company I want,” he said. “The deal also states I can receive from them the knowhow, formulas and option to purchase raw materials from their suppliers – if I want.” He admits that he has to remove the likenesses of founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield from the product, but he’s fine with that. “I wanted to do that anyway after their behavior deeply offended me after being my friends for decades,” he says. “Also, I want the logo to be in Hebrew or Arabic, not English. The cow, the background, everything else will remain.”
We will continue to monitor and report on the lawsuit.
Odds & Ends
?? 11 Democrats introduced a bill that would force the FBI and the State Department to investigate the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh and determine whether a U.S. weapon killed her. Alex Kane reports in Jewish Currents.
?? Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) on his recent congressional trip to Israel, which was sponsored by an AIPAC affiliate: “We certainly got everyone’s perspective to make sure that the relationship remains bipartisan. What was clear to me is just how strong our relationship remains and how durable it is and how deep our cooperation is. And I really don’t believe that any change of leadership will have an impact on that. And that was my broader takeaway.”
?️ Adam Frisch, a Democratic primary candidate in Colorado’s third district, spoke to Jewish Insider about his campaign last month. He’s trying to unseat Lauren Boebert in November. “The BDS movement is something I’m concerned about,” he told the website. “Some of it is ignorance, some of it is antisemitic, but I think some of it is more, I would say, anti-Israel. If you do a Venn diagram and you get into anti-Israel and antisemitic, there’s a lot of overlap, for sure, but there are some parts where it’s not.”
? Rep. Haley Stevens turned her back and walked away from a young Jewish mother who asked her why she’s taking campaign money from AIPAC.
? MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan had a good segment on Shireen Abu Akleh.
? 50 Cent is performing in Tel Aviv.
? From Palestine Legal: “After a year of retaliating against university staff for providing support to Palestinian students grieving Israeli state violence last spring, George Washington University is effectively shutting down an office that provides services to students experiencing trauma.” You can read the full update their website.
? The American Friends Service Committee’s Dov Baum was on the Electronic Intifada podcast talking about General Mills divesting from Israel.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
