By: Carl Schwartzbaum
In the latest development at the intersection of corporate activism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Ben Cohen, the Jewish co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s and longtime anti-Israel campaigner, has claimed that the ice cream brand’s parent company, Unilever, prevented him from releasing a watermelon-themed flavor intended to express solidarity with Palestinians. As The Algemeiner reported on Thursday, Cohen accused Unilever — and its subsidiary, Magnum Ice Cream — of blocking what he described as an initiative to promote “peace and justice in Palestine,” prompting him to announce plans to create and distribute the flavor independently.
Posting on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Cohen wrote: “Unilever and Magnum stopped Ben & Jerry’s from creating a flavor for Palestine — so I’m doing it myself.” The businessman, who sold Ben & Jerry’s to Unilever in 2000 but remains active in political advocacy, said he intends to launch the product as either a watermelon ice cream or sorbet and invited his followers to help name the flavor, design the packaging, and suggest ingredients.
“I’ve got a watermelon, an empty pint, and I need your help,” Cohen wrote in his online call to action. The post was accompanied by a video in which he accuses Israel of “occupation” in Gaza and claims his new flavor would “call for permanent peace in Palestine and for repairing all the damage that was done there.”
“The scale of suffering of the Palestinian people over the last two years has been unimaginable,” Cohen said in the video, as cited in The Algemeiner report. “The ceasefire is a welcome relief, but there is much more work to do to rebuild. Palestinians are still living under occupation, still recovering from years of suffering. A while back, Ben & Jerry’s tried to make a flavor to call for peace in Palestine, to stand for justice and dignity for everyone. But they weren’t allowed to. They were stopped by Unilever/Magnum.”
The choice of watermelon is deeply symbolic. As The Algemeiner report explained, the fruit has become an emblem of Palestinian solidarity since it features the same four colors as the Palestinian flag — red, green, black, and white — and has been used by activists as a coded symbol in areas where overt political imagery is restricted. In recent years, it has appeared on protest banners, murals, and social media posts, often representing defiance against Israel.
For many Israelis and Jewish organizations, however, such symbolism — especially when amplified by prominent Western brands or public figures — risks normalizing rhetoric that erases Israel’s right to exist. Cohen’s proposed flavor, which he has characterized as a “tribute to peace and Palestine,” is already drawing fierce criticism for using a commercial platform to promote a politicized, one-sided narrative.
According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, Cohen’s remarks echo a broader pattern in his public activism, which has repeatedly courted controversy by blurring the line between humanitarian advocacy and political hostility toward Israel.
Unilever, the British multinational conglomerate that owns Ben & Jerry’s, moved swiftly to clarify the situation. In a statement provided to FOX Business and cited in The Algemeiner report, a Magnum spokesperson confirmed that the idea for a “Palestinian solidarity” flavor had been discussed internally earlier this year, but ultimately rejected.
“The independent members of the Ben & Jerry’s board of directors made a proposal in this direction this summer,” the spokesperson said. “The independent members of Ben & Jerry’s Board are not, and have never been, responsible for the Ben & Jerry’s commercial strategy and execution. Recommendations are considered by Ben & Jerry’s leadership, and Ben & Jerry’s management has determined now is not the right time to invest in developing this product.”
Magnum, one of Unilever’s most profitable subsidiaries and the world’s largest ice cream brand, is currently in the process of a demerger from its parent company, a move that analysts say may reflect Unilever’s desire to streamline its global operations and distance itself from the brand controversies that have dogged Ben & Jerry’s for years.
As The Algemeiner report noted, Unilever’s statement was a carefully worded attempt to strike a balance between respecting Ben & Jerry’s activist culture and maintaining corporate neutrality amid volatile geopolitical tensions.
This latest controversy is hardly the first time Ben & Jerry’s — or its founders — have courted political turmoil. Since its acquisition by Unilever, the company has maintained an unusual governance structure granting its independent board of directors the authority to preserve its “social mission,” even on issues that clash with corporate policy.
That framework came under intense scrutiny in 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would end sales in “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, calling Israel’s presence there “inconsistent with our values.” The move, widely condemned by Jewish leaders and political figures, was reported by The Algemeiner as one of the most high-profile corporate endorsements of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
The decision triggered legal and political backlash in both the United States and Israel. Several states invoked anti-BDS laws to divest from Unilever, and the Israeli government moved to protect its economy from what it viewed as discriminatory boycotts. Under pressure, Unilever eventually sold Ben & Jerry’s operations in Israel to a local distributor, ensuring continued sales under Hebrew labeling — a move that further enraged the company’s board.
According to the information contained in The Algemeiner report, tensions between the Vermont-based brand and its London-based parent have since only deepened, culminating in lawsuits, leadership shakeups, and public accusations of censorship.
In May 2025, Ben Cohen was forcibly removed from a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing after disrupting testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Cohen, who shouted anti-Israel slogans during the hearing, was escorted out by Capitol Police.
Earlier in the year, Ben & Jerry’s filed a legal complaint against Unilever, accusing the parent company of violating the terms of their 2000 merger by firing CEO David Stever, who had drawn scrutiny for his anti-Israel social media activity. According to court filings reviewed by The Algemeiner, the ice cream company argued that Stever’s dismissal was part of a campaign by Unilever to stifle its “progressive voice.”
In September, Jerry Greenfield, Cohen’s longtime business partner and fellow co-founder, announced his departure from the company after 47 years, saying he felt that Unilever had “silenced” Ben & Jerry’s activism. “The company I helped build no longer feels free to speak its truth,” Greenfield said in remarks quoted in The Algemeiner report.
These internal divisions, as The Algemeiner report observed, reflect a broader identity crisis within Ben & Jerry’s — a struggle to reconcile its founders’ activist roots with the commercial realities of operating under a global conglomerate accountable to shareholders.
Cohen’s independent “watermelon flavor” project has reignited debate over the ethics of corporate activism, particularly when tied to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Critics argue that using food as a vehicle for political messaging trivializes complex geopolitical issues while alienating consumers who expect neutrality from global brands.
Jewish groups and pro-Israel advocates cited in The Algemeiner report condemned Cohen’s move as “performative activism,” warning that it risks amplifying antisemitic sentiment by framing Israel as a singular source of injustice. Others see it as another example of how cultural symbolism — in this case, the watermelon — is being co-opted to reinforce divisive political narratives.
“Ben Cohen is free to express his personal views,” one Jewish advocacy leader told The Algemeiner, “but when those views are packaged as ice cream, they become part of a broader campaign to delegitimize Israel under the guise of ‘peace.’”
While it remains unclear whether Cohen’s independently produced “Palestine flavor” will ever reach the market, the episode underscores a persistent fault line in American corporate life: the clash between social activism and shareholder accountability.
As The Algemeiner report noted, the controversy reveals how Israel-related issues continue to act as a cultural lightning rod — capable of fracturing businesses, dividing communities, and redefining brand identities.
Unilever’s attempt to contain the fallout illustrates the challenge faced by multinational corporations navigating polarizing issues. For Ben & Jerry’s, meanwhile, the struggle over its “social mission” has evolved from a marketing strategy into an ideological battleground — one in which the legacy of its founders may ultimately melt faster than the ice cream they once made famous.
In the end, as The Algemeiner report observed, “Ben Cohen’s watermelon may melt long before it brings peace — but its symbolism will leave a lasting stain on the company’s already fraught relationship with Israel.”
