For years, the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (BDS) has pressured the Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream company to end sales in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Ben & Jerry’s resisted the pressure until last May, when it insisted that Avi Zinger, who produces and distributes Ben & Jerry’s ice cream throughout Israel and Palestinian territories, stop providing ice cream to customers in certain areas. Zinger refused to comply, citing the principles at stake as well as a series of laws that he believes would be violated were he to cooperate with Ben & Jerry’s request. Earlier this month, he filed a lawsuit against his parent company.

I share the company’s commitment to social justice and have invested tremendous energy and personal resources in programs that foster coexistence and tolerance between Palestinians and Israelis. . . . For decades, Ben & Jerry’s Israel has supported these causes and more, including initiatives I developed like “Fruits of Peace”—a project to strengthen economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians by developing ice-cream flavors using ingredients sourced from local Palestinian farmers. But the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which does not support coexistence, prevented us from moving forward on this program, which opened economic doors for Palestinians like no other.

For years, the BDS movement has been targeting Ben & Jerry’s headquarters in Vermont, demanding the company end sales in what it calls the “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” But the primary consumers in those territories are Palestinians. In other words: BDS activists wanted Ben & Jerry’s to “help” Palestinians by depriving them of jobs (and ice cream).

I refuse to discriminate, and I strongly believe that boycotts are not the path to peace in the Middle East. But most significant of all: the Ben & Jerry’s directive is against the law.

Israel’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discriminating against individuals based on residence. The company’s directive also breaches Israel’s anti-boycott law; American anti-boycott laws and policies; the terms of my license agreement; and the terms of a consent decree that Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s’ parent company, signed as a condition of Israel’s approval of the Ben & Jerry’s-Unilever merger.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.