This is somewhat of a complex matter.
B&Js created a legal structure that puts social responsibilities as part of their decision-making process. Their boards are obligated to do so. (they are a B-Corp).
Unilever now owns B&J. Yet, B&J has an independent board.
The B&J board is required to submit their yearly business and social plan for Unilever, Unilever has the right to reject the plan. As long as it is done in good faith. It so seems that Unilever may only reject their yearly plan if they disagree with the financial aspect of it.
This leaves Unilever in a tight spot. They might not love Isreal that much, but they do not want to lose market share. They are a financial company and not a social company.
I am sure there are some loopholes, such as determining that the social decisions of the board are not in line with socially accepted standards and actually are causing conflict. Furthermore, they may use the clause that allows them to reject the yearly business plan based on the potential for lost revenue.
The merger/sale agreement is public information.