In a 2018 announcement identical to the just one created by Ben & Jerry’s this week, Airbnb reported that it would no for a longer period be presenting listings in Israeli settlements.

Airbnb insisted that it was not boycotting Israel and that it opposed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which does not differentiate among Israel right and the West Financial institution, as Airbnb was in search of to do. But that was not sufficient to avert the getaway rental giant from remaining inundated with lawsuits by plaintiffs in the United States who alleged discriminatory practices.

In a court settlement reached less than 5 months right after its press-halting announcement, Airbnb determined to walk back again the decision to eliminate listings in the settlements.

With its Monday announcement that it would cease marketing its ice cream in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” Ben & Jerry’s ostensibly aims to choose the anti-settlement result in a action more than Airbnb was in a position to carry it.

But the ice product large is slated to experience equivalent authorized issues by professional-Israel activists and lawmakers in the US who do not take initiatives to differentiate concerning Israel and the West Financial institution when it arrives to boycotts. They maintain that the refusal to provide a pint in Efrat is no distinct from refusing to market a single in Tel Aviv.

Israel has not wasted any time, with its ambassador to the US, Gilad Erdan, penning letters to each individual of the governors of the above 30 states that have handed laws focusing on BDS, urging them to act versus Ben & Jerry’s in line with individuals laws.

That legislation consists of necessities for states to pull their pension fund investments from corporations that boycott Israel and strip individuals organizations of any contracts signed with said states.

Richard Goldberg, who drafted a single of the to start with anti-BDS legislation though performing for previous Illinois governor Bruce Rauner in 2015, stated that in addition to the discrimination lawsuits, Airbnb’s final decision to stroll back its settlement boycott adopted notices from states this kind of as Illinois, Florida and New Jersey that they prepared to pull their pension funds as a outcome of the announcement.

“Those states took action and got Airbnb’s focus very quickly, partly simply because they ended up wanting ahead to an IPO, and point out pension divestment actions would likely have been fairly rough for them in that environment,” Goldberg advised The Moments of Israel.

According to Bloomberg investment knowledge, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Arizona, Illinois and Mississippi all have pension funds at this time invested in Unilever, the mum or dad business of Ben & Jerry’s. They are also six of the 12 states that have passed laws demanding them to divest their pension money from corporations that take part in a boycott of Israel.

“In this case, you have a decision by a big company to inflict financial harm on a enterprise primarily based in Israel for political motivations, which is not just a textbook definition of BDS, but a authorized definition inside of the standards of the state guidelines against it,” claimed Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser to the Basis for Defense of Democracies. He was referring to the Ben and Jerry’s plant in Israel, which misplaced its deal to deliver the ice cream because of to the company’s decision.

Lara Friedman, who tracks anti-BDS legislation as president of the Foundation of Middle East Peace, claimed she predicted states to act quickly.

“For legislators making an attempt to make a genuinely political statement, I really don’t see them declaring, ‘Well let’s hold out and see,’” she said, including that settlement boycott opponents will most likely be “scrubbing the books in the states that have these legislation to see if they can consider some punitive motion.”

Concentrating on pension investments seems to be a a lot more surefire way of exacting revenge on Ben & Jerry’s than blacklisting the organization from contracts with states.

Next a collection of To start with Modification problems to the rules, many states now set a minimum sum of $100,000 in trade prior to anti-BDS actions can be triggered versus a contractor. That would mean that lesser Ben & Jerry’s contracts would stay unaffected, even in states with anti-BDS regulations. But Friedman and Goldberg continue to explained that upcoming contracts with Ben & Jerry’s could be in jeopardy.

The third monitor of punishment that Ben & Jerry’s will likely encounter is reputational hurt. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid set the tone of the onslaught went he claimed that the ice cream enterprise “caved to antisemitism.”

The West Bank settlement of Beitar Illit, with the Palestinian village of Wadi Fukin in the valley under, June 17, 2015. (Nati Shohat/Flash90)

“Trying to slander these businesses as antisemitic on the countrywide and international stage is not a small factor,” Friedman said. “The problem is how very long will organizations and shareholders be willing to maintain the line against that.

“The people who oppose this will pull out all the stops to push Ben & Jerry’s to reverse the placement like Airbnb did or to punish them so terribly that no a person else will dare go there,” she included.

Goldberg famous the energy by Ben & Jerry’s to differentiate among its West Bank ban and its willingness to proceed advertising its products in Israel, in an apparent exertion to skirt authorized repercussions.

“Differentiation is a comfortable spot for these who want to say this is about settlements and not about the Condition of Israel, which elides the truth that the policy of settlements in the West Lender is a coverage of the Condition of Israel,” Friedman stated.

Goldberg famous that states’ anti-BDS legislation tends to make no these differentiation amongst the West Lender and Israel right, “because in the end you are punishing an Israeli company and not just one that is only working in the West Lender.”

The laws look to have been written with the intention of which include boycotts of settlements in the broader framework of Israel boycotts. In Illinois’s anti-BDS regulation for case in point, Israel boycotts are outlined as “engaging in actions that are politically inspired and are meant to penalize, inflict economic damage on, or in any other case restrict professional relations with the Condition of Israel or organizations primarily based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the Condition of Israel.”

A lot more than concentrating on the boycotters of Israel proper, Friedman maintained that anti-BDS legislation is designed to go just after the reasonably additional reasonable corporations that urge qualified boycotts of the settlement organization. She referred to a current blacklist compiled as a outcome of New York’s anti-BDS legislation wherever the greater part of companies stated were ones that engaged in settlement boycotts and added that no big enterprise has pursued a boycott of both Israel and the settlements in the previous 10 years.

JTA contributed to this report.