The iconic, famously woke ice cream company, Ben & Jerry’s, announced on Monday that it will no longer sell its product in “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” As the company explained, “We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).” However, they added, “Although Ben & Jerry’s will no longer be sold in the OPT, we will stay in Israel through a different arrangement.”

Put another way (and to read between the lines), “We will continue to sell our ice cream to the evil oppressors in their own apartheid state, one that was founded on genocide and ethnic cleansing and one that exists to this day on stolen Palestinian land. But we will not sell our ice cream to these evil oppressors who live in illegal settlements in other portions of equally stolen land.”

How righteous. How consistent. How just.

Had I not given up eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream 7 years ago (for health reasons, along with lots of other foods I dropped), I would be losing my taste about now.

The responses to Ben & Jerry’s announcement have been as predictable as they have been telling.

From the Israeli side, the new prime minister Napthali Bennett said, “There are many ice cream brands, but only one Jewish state.”

Israelis can do without the ice cream but not without their state.

Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “Now we Israelis know which ice cream NOT to buy.”

Well said, sir.

From the anti-Israel side, the BDS movement tweeted, “Following years of #BDS campaigns @benandjerrys has announced it will end sales of its ice cream in Israel’s illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

We warmly welcome their decision but call on Ben & Jerry’s to end all operations in apartheid Israel.

#BDSsuccess”

In other words, “This is a good step in the right direction, but if you really want to do the right thing – and be assured we will keep pressuring you until you – you must stop doing any business with evil Israel.”

A fuller statement from the BDS movement (which stands for boycott, divestment, and sanctions) said this: “After years of pressure from activists, Ben & Jerry’s announced it will not renew its licensing agreement with its Israeli licensee, who is involved in selling the ice cream in illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

“The BDS movement welcomes Ben & Jerry’s decision as a decisive step towards ending the company’s complicity in Israel’s occupation and violations of Palestinian rights.

“Ben & Jerry’s, a leading socially responsible international company, is finally bringing its policy on Israel’s regime of oppression against Palestinians in line with its progressive positions on Black Lives Matter and other justice struggles. We hope Ben & Jerry’s has understood that, in harmony with its social justice commitments, there can be no business as usual with apartheid Israel.”

All, clear, BDS.

The Jewish people in Israel have created an apartheid state on stolen land. No business as usual with them. Not until they remove the protection barrier designed to keep out murderous terrorists. Not until they retreat to pre-1967 (= suicidal, indefensible borders). And not until they allow all Palestinian “refugees” to return to their homeland.

In other words, BDS will exist until Israel is no more, since the demands of the movement, if fully implemented, would result in the end of the Jewish state.

Why then is Ben & Jerry’s only pulling its ice cream from the “illegal settlements” rather than from the nation as a whole? Why allow those evil Israelis, those apartheid genocidal monsters, to enjoy these sumptuous treats in the luxury of their homes in West Jerusalem or their restaurants in Tel Aviv?

And if the ice cream will not be sold in the “OPT,” does that mean that the Palestinians living nearby will not be able to buy it either? Or that those of them whose jobs involve the distribution of the ice cream will be hurt economically by the boycott?

As for these last two questions, I’m simply putting them up for discussion, since the official announcement is lacking in details. But one thing is sure: a good case can be made for the fact that the BDS movement actually hurts the Palestinians more than it helps them. (For a strong, anti-BDS statement from Palestinian activist Bassam Eid, see here.)

Of course, there are other reasons not to be impressed with Ben & Jerry’s “righteous” stand, not the least of which is the company’s contractual agreement with Unilever.

As explained on the Washington Free Beacon, “The most common expression of anti-Semitism on the left is the application of double standards to Jews and the Jewish state.

“Look no further than Ben & Jerry’s partnership with Unilever, which acquired the ice cream company in 2000. There is no comparison between Israeli policy in the West Bank and the practices of the world’s greatest human rights abusers. Unilever happily does business everywhere from occupied Northern Cyprus to occupied Tibet and Xinjiang, home to Uyghur concentration camps. We won’t hold our breath for the ice cream boycott of China or Russia. But hey, there are no Jews in Xinjiang.”

Exactly.

As a lover of God and a lover of justice, I, too, want to see the fair and equal treatment of the Palestinians along with the safety and thriving of the Jewish state of Israel.

That’s why I so reject the incoherent and hypocritical policy decision of Ben & Jerry’s.

---

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

President Obama’s interview with The Huffington Post (HuffPost) has been treated as if the on-line publication is somehow respectable and legitimate. The topics of the interview included budget sequestration, the Iran nuclear talks, presidential pardons, overtime pay, athletic scholarships and sleep. But here are some stories from the on-line outlet you may have missed (Be advised these articles may be offensive to some):

• Porn Stars Without Makeup
• This Map Shows Where America Loves ‘Butts’ More Than ‘Boobs’
• These Striking Portraits Of Porn Stars Shine A Different Light On XXX Actors

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth notes that The Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices” section has run a video of movie scenes with full-frontal male nudity.

In addition to publishing and promoting pornography, The Huffington Post is a “progressive” platform for advocates of abortion, homosexual rights and marijuana legalization. It was named after Arianna Huffington’s ex-husband, Michael Huffington, who was born rich and then turned gay. (In this case, apparently, being gay was a choice). She used his money from a divorce settlement to start the on-line “news” service in 2005.

On foreign policy, the publication is pro-Arab, pro-Muslim and anti-Israel. One report documents how it works hand-in-glove with Al Jazeera.

The blog known as Huff-Watch has documented the publication’s “pathological, malicious incitement of hate against the U.S. military, Israel and Jews, the Tea Party and conservative individuals and organizations.”

A couple examples will suffice. One contrasts a story from The Huffington Post-sponsored World Post, quoting the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei as criticizing the Senate GOP letter warning against an Iranian nuclear deal. The story quoted the “Supreme Leader” of the world’s number one state sponsor of Islamist terror, “without criticism or skepticism of any kind.” By contrast, The Huffington Post presented the speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave to Congress on March 3 as “Bupkis,” a term which means “of little or no value.”

Huff-Watch notes that The Huffington Post has a “longstanding pattern of pictorial bias to ensure that Iranian madmen look as benevolent and kindly as possible, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu looks as sinister and evil as possible.” It notes one photo showing Iran’s chief mullah “looking very grandfatherly,” in contrast to a photo of Netanyahu looking “angry, sinister and malevolent.”

But The Huffington Post really has a love for the homosexual movement. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to separate the “Gay Voices” section from its “Religion” section. Here are some headlines and stories from the religion section:

• “Most Mainline Protestants Embrace Gay Marriage”
• “Presbyterian Church Votes To Allow Gay Marriage”
• “Evangelical Leader Apologizes To Gays”
• “Pope Will Break Bread With Gay, Transgender Inmates”
• “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Embraces LGBT-Inclusive Definition Of Marriage.”
• “Prominent Megachurch Stops Asking Gay Christians To Be Celibate”
• “Queering the Way of the Cross: Meditations on a Queer Spiritual Journey”

On occasion, however, The Huffington Post reveals a disturbing truth in its rush to promote the “alternative lifestyle.” One such example is the piece, “How Gay Porn Helped Build the Gay Rights Movement.” The piece was actually quite informative.

The author, Mike Stabile, made a film about pornographer Charles M. “Chuck” Holmes titled, “Seed Money: The Chuck Holmes Story.” He said Holmes and other pornographers funded the homosexual rights movement directly and also lent “their mailing lists to fledgling organizations like the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRC).” He notes that Holmes “was a prodigious donor to the HRC, and later served on its Board of Directors.”

The HRC was a big backer of Obama for president. Obama has spoken at the group’s fundraising events.

You may recall that the Charles M. Holmes Foundation was established after his death from AIDS, based on his assets, and was turned over to Terry Bean, a co-founder of the HRC and a friend of President Obama. Bean has since taken a leave of absence from the Human Rights Campaign after he was arrested on sexual abuse charges involving sex with a minor.

In a story about the Obama administration using tax dollars to celebrate the homosexual riots at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, I noted that “Bean financed a film called ‘Dream Boy,’ described as a gay, love story about a shy high school kid who gets seduced by his neighbor and school pal.”

We confirmed that the Holmes Foundation, which Bean chairs, lists an investment in Dream Boy LLC in its 2010 income tax return, and that Dream Boy LLC was the registered agent for the film when it was featured at a 2008 “Outfest” homosexual film festival. The film was rated R for sexual content, with some violence, including a rape involving teens.

None of this seems to bother Obama, however, or at least those in the administration who decide who or what publications he talks to.

If you want to study all the tricks of the trade in the matter of a “progressive” media bias that approaches the absurd, The Huffington Post is worth analyzing. One has to wonder if the editors realize how ridiculous their bias makes them look.

Originally published at AIM.org