Living under Zionist Israel [Unrest in Jerusalem]


Legendary Member
I made no reference to Vermont in the first place. Your question was as superfluous as you are.

I think you are desperate. 🤣 Let's go back to this in a week and see if your prediction will fall.

If you made no references to Vermont, then at very least you should've been smart enough to understand to what you are replying to begin with.


Legendary Member
I made no reference to Vermont in the first place. Your question was as superfluous as you are.

I think you are desperate. 🤣 Let's go back to this in a week and see if your prediction will fall.

I gave it a week, but I think am wrong for it might take even less than that.


Sayyid Jewry

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter


Legendary Member
How is this any different than:

Same people were preaching the freedom of a private company to decide who to sell its products to. Either for or against but it cannot be both and if its both it means there is bias.
"Same people were preaching the freedom of a private company to decide who to sell its products to"

You are correct and the same people are preaching freedom of private citizen to decide who to buy products from.

Perfect combination.


New Member
Watch how Israel will come to terms with the boycott metl l shatourin. It's what we call hawbara.

They were completely and utterly snubbed not only by the Democrats but by Republicans as well. :lol::lol: No one even bothered to criticize B&J. It hardly hit the headlines in US media. My theory on the Republican snub is that they see any government that tries to give face to Biden as "treacherous" so Israelis are now stuck within the divisions of US politics they tried to foster. Biden and the state department were clear "we have no comment on what a private company decides to do". It's so hilarious reading those articles in Israeli media how they are trying to build a grass roots campaign among evangelicals. Freakin evangelicals. As if B&J ever advertised itself to evangelical Christians.

Frankly, I'm so surprised that they put so much stock in this. Strategically it's terrible. A boycott of the settlements is technically not a boycott of Israel and not a support of BDS, and if they can't tell the difference anymore, so much the better.


Well-Known Member
Looks like Ben & Jerry’s is profiting from the free propaganda their sales are up everywhere...

Israel is in meltdown over the ‘terrorism’ of Ben & Jerry’s stopping sales of its ice creams in the occupied territories


The brand’s decision has driven political leaders into a frenzy, who accuse it of ‘anti-semitism’ and ‘a new form of terrorism’. Their hysterical rhetoric reflects their fears that other large businesses will follow its lead.
As if it were something out of a satirical soap opera, Israel’s political elite have come out in force against the existential threat of the “anti-Semitic” ice cream brand, but none of what is being said by Israeli leaders is to be taken as a joke. According to Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, the stand by Ben and Jerry’s will have “serious consequences, legal and otherwise, and that [Israel] will act aggressively against all boycott actions directed against its citizens”.
Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, even went as far as saying that Ben & Jerry’s is engaging in “a new form of terrorism”. While Israel’s Foreign Minister, Yair Lapid, has compared the action to a form of anti-semitism and vows to contact states in the US which have enacted unconstitutional anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions against Israel) laws, to try and get those states to punish the company.
So it is clear that Israel is taking the move very seriously, but what does this all actually mean? Well, for some 700,000 illegal Israeli settlers, living in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, they will no longer be supplied with products from Ben & Jerry’s. Practically however, if Israel allows the sale of the ice cream to continue at all, those settlers could just simply drive in their cars – some for no longer than about 10 minutes – in order to enter Israel and buy it.
Unlike Palestinians, who suffer through military checkpoints and roadblocks, needing an ID or permit to travel into Israel, settlers have VIP access to Israel. Settlers don’t have to struggle like Palestinians; they simply drive into Israel as if there is no difference between the occupied territory and the occupying state where they hold citizenship.
ALSO ON RT.COMNetanyahu tells Israelis ‘NOT to buy’ Ben & Jerry’s ice cream after company stops sales in ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’
So in plain terms, nothing will really change immediately for settlers, other than having to buy different types of ice creams, or alternatively take a drive to get their Ben & Jerry’s. Funnily, former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is an arch opponent of boycotts, said on Twitter, “Now we Israelis know which ice cream NOT to buy”, which is a clear call for a boycott. So in Netanyahu’s eyes, it seems that boycotts are anti-Semitic, unless Israelis do them against their political enemies, then they are completely fine.
The real reason behind Israel’s aggressive approach to combating the Ben & Jerry’s move is not to do with the government truly believing that the ice cream company is anti-Semitic or is committing terrorism. Instead, Israel is looking to set an example for other companies, who may potentially be looking to follow suit, of how much chaos such a step could cause them.
Importantly, the act by the ice cream franchise is not an act of singling out as many Israeli critics have claimed, using this assertion as a means of framing the decision as based in anti-Jewish prejudice. In fact, the brand has been well known for backing many left-wing and human rights causes, including an endorsement of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Israel’s status in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is considered unanimously, by the opinion of UN member states, as being an occupation of Palestinian lands. Under international law, the occupation is considered to be illegal, rooted in the 1974 United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314, which was the first to assert the illegality of “any military occupation, however temporary”.
On top of Israel maintaining an illegal occupation, it also commits various other crimes, including the transfer of its own population into those territories. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states clearly that, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
ALSO ON RT.COM‘Are they going to bomb Vermont?’ Israel gets skewered after claiming Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream boycott is ‘new form of terrorism’
Most recently, UN Security Council Resolution 2334 in 2016 reaffirmed that “Israel’s Settlements have no legal validity”, so when Ben & Jerry’s decided that selling in these illegal settlements is against their values, what they essentially meant to say is that they value international law.
What Israel now fears is that more international companies will now decide to take the step to stop doing business in illegal settlements built on Palestinian land and that this will be a blow for the likes of PM Naftali Bennett, who believes the Bible grants him the right to that land.
If Ben & Jerry’s do not give in to Israel’s pressure, they will at the very least continue to face considerable attacks, which may or may not be enough to hold other companies back. But as Israeli politicians try their very best to go on the offensive, they may have instead made themselves laughing stocks, rather than intimidators, for claiming that a delicious ice cream brand is the world’s newest terrorist group. Al-Qaeda flavour, anyone?


New Member
Agree with this article. The masks have fallen off the Israeli "leftists" and "liberals". They were exposed to be entirely complacent in the oppression of Palestinians and support the settlement enterprise regardless of their claims for "peace".


Israeli response to Ben & Jerry’s announcement reveals ironclad consensus behind the settlements​

Meretz represents the far left of Israeli politics and even its leader says even he buys settlement products. This more than anything shows the overwhelming Israeli political consensus behind the settlements.

Nitzan Horowitz addresses the 2019 J Street National Conference (Photo: J Street)
Nitzan Horowitz addresses the 2019 J Street National Conference (Photo: J Street)

The big news is ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s decisionto stop selling their products in Israeli West Bank settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, all of which are flagrantly illegal by international law.

The response in Israel was unhinged. From Prime Minister Naftali Bennett calling it “anti-Israel ice cream”, to his predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu calling for counter-boycott (“now we Israelis know which ice cream NOT to buy”), to the centrist Foreign Minister Yair Lapid calling it antisemitism, to economy and industry minister Orna Barbivay posting a TikTok video of her throwing a pint in the trash.
Israel’s US ambassador Gilad Erdan, formerly the czar of Israel’s anti-BDS ministry, took the advice of the ‘liberal’ Lapid, and wrote to 35 US Governors of states which passed the anti-constitutional, anti-boycott laws that the Israel lobby has been promoting, and urged them to act against the “dehumanization of the Jewish people”. Erdan had the nerve to use that old rag, the empathy card – that boycotts would “harm Palestinians as well”.
But where we really must focus is on the Zionist left. Because their reaction to the Ben & Jerry’s news shows how deeply entrenched the consensus behind the settlements is within the Jewish State.
Nitzan Horowitz, leader of Meretz, the furthest left party in the supposed “government of change”, responded to the Ben & Jerry’s announcement by saying that he, too, buys settlement products, “sometimes”. Asked at a Ynet interview whether he “also purchase(s) products that were made in settlements”, Horowitz said:
Yes, sometimes I end up also buying products that are made in settlements.
Horowitz’s point was that he didn’t think boycotts were useful and that he was “against them”, but pointed the focus elsewhere:
But I’m saying that the solution and the discussion do not need to be at this level at all. It needs to be at the diplomatic level so as to solve the problem from the foundation, because if we don’t do that we will always encounter these claims, these campaigns, attempts to boycott… The principal matter as far as I am concerned is promoting the arrangement against (sic) the Palestinians.
And what exactly is this “arrangement against the Palestinians” per Horowitz? It is something that comes out of “negotiations”.
The “arrangement against the Palestinians” probably does not come across as anything special in Israeli jargon, but I find it a singularly telling Freudian slip. The “peace process”, with the endless negotiations and finally “arrangements” which essentially put Palestinians into Bantustans, is a major aspect in bringing about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement in 2005 – a Palestinian call to take Israel to account for its violations. It was realized, that these “negotiations” between a vastly superior occupying party and a vastly inferior occupied party can never bring about any arrangement that can lead to justice for Palestinians. This was after the Oslo Agreements of mid-90’s (an interim agreement meant to bring to final status negotiations within 5 years) froze the Occupied Palestinian Territories into a Swiss cheese of areas A, B, and C; this was after Israeli Labor’s Ehud Barak supposedly extended Palestinians a “generous offer” that amounted to Bantustans with military checkpoints; this was after the International Court of Justice in 2004 ruled that Israel’s separation barrier (aka Apartheid Wall) was illegal, but Israel’s Supreme Court defied the world. and the world accepted. Israel was basically shielded by US backing, and felt no need to comply with international law nor to relinquish its power without any substantial outside pressure.
Notice Horowitz’s claim that he, too, buys settlement products (“sometimes”). He is telling us that these settlements are part of what he sees as legitimate. For him, it’s part of Israel. It’s very important to understand what an overwhelming consensus this is in Israel.
Horowitz might not call this boycott antisemitic, as Lapid does, but the government minister just to his right, Merav Michaeli, Leader of Labor, has done exactly that. Although she appeared silent on the Ben & Jerry’s story, in 2017 she told the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council:
I think it’s for a long time now been very clear, that a lot of the BDS movement is good old anti-Semitism in new clothes… It’s definitely not good for anyone, other than those who really want to harm Israel and harm Jews.
The approach of these people is basically that there can be critique, but it should never amount to action. Horowitz should also be able to buy settlement products sometimes. It’s like the ADL says:
We are disappointed by this decision from @benandjerrys. You can disagree with policies without feeding into dangerous campaigns that seek to undermine Israel.
All of these responses, and especially the ones from the minuscule Israeli left, are an indication of one thing: Israel is entrenched in its settlements, and it will not budge. It is one state that is determined to maintain its Apartheid control with only symbolic dissent at best. Anything beyond this results in cries of “antisemitism” and “dehumanization of the Jewish people”.
And this all brings us back to Ben & Jerry’s. They are implementing what is called “selective boycott”, in that they are not saying they would withdraw from Israel completely – they only refer to their intent to withdraw sales from occupied Palestinian territory. The question becomes, why not take the whole state to task for its violations, if it is so clear that it is one state? As the leading Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem pointed out, it’s a one “Apartheid… regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea”; Human Rights Watch confirmed that Israel maintains a singular regime of Apartheid and Persecution. So why not take the whole regime to task, rather than just some of the territories it controls?
This is a discussion which has been going on for some years. In 2016, ‘liberal-Zionists’ such as Todd Gitlin, Peter Beinart, Kai Bird, Peter Brooks, Michael Walzer, Edward Witten, et al. promoted selective boycotts of settlements, yet opposed “an economic, political, or cultural boycott of Israel itself as defined by its June 4, 1967, borders”. In response to this, Angela Y. Davis, Chandler Davis, Richard A. Falk, Rashid Khalidi, Alice Rothchild, et al. welcomed “the shattering of the taboo against boycotting Israeli entities that are complicit in—at least selective—violations of Palestinian human rights” but then wondered:
Defying common sense, however, the statement calls for boycotting settlements while letting Israel, the state that has illegally built and maintained those settlements for decades, off the hook.
It is becoming clear, that Israel rejects any distinction between itself and the Palestinian territories it occupies. For Israel, this is all one Jewish State. And it is not going to say thank you for that distinction. Yes there are some exceptions: Gabi Lasky of Meretz did express satisfaction at Ben & Jerry’s distinction, while saying she was “not happy with the boycotts”; Meretz lawmaker Mosi Raz noted the “immorality of the settlements”. But they are outliers. The distinction hardly exists in the Israeli political spectrum, and it seems that it only serves as a marginal lip-tax for the furthest Zionist left, so that its leader balances his criticism by saying that he too buys settlement products. It’s pathetic.
We need to come to terms with it, and understand that this talk has become pedantic, feeding into the “dual regimes delusion” as Nathan Thrall so brilliantly called it in the London Review of Books in January. There is no “Israel proper” here, and occupation “there”.
It’s all one state of Apartheid.
Israel is clearly playing the game of all or nothing. If you boycott it in any way, it will act as one against you. Change Government is no different from Netanyahu.
Now we hear that the local Israeli subsidiary of Ben & Jerry’s is challenging the global company, Unilever, which owns the ice cream brand, as well as the global Ben & Jerry’s leadership. In a tweet Monday evening, local Ben & Jerry’s CEO Avi Zinger tweeted:
“We are continuing to sell in all of Israel, and we will not surrender to the pressure of Unilever and the global Ben & Jerry’s”.
Ben & Jerry’s has clearly gotten into a war on this, which is also conducted from within its executive ranks. The global company will clearly have to stand its ground against colossal Israeli pressure. Hopefully, it will not do the volte face that Airbnb did, when they first declared they would pull out of settlements, and then reversed. It may be that events will force Ben & Jerry’s out of Israel completely. In my opinion it would be better if Ben & Jerry’s stepped out on its own volition as an ideological statement, but even if it gets forced out by standing its ground, it would be an encouragement to other companies: that they too can take Israel to task for its violations, despite the backlash, and survive.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Orna Barbivay and Ben Shapiro too say they will not be eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream anymore. I, on the other hand, am seriously considering getting back to it.



Well-Known Member
Speaking of a deviant mentality...

IDF soldier SUES Ben & Jerry’s for pulling his ‘preferred’ ice cream from occupied Palestinian territory


An Israel Defense Forces soldier is attempting to sue Ben & Jerry’s for withdrawing its ice cream from sale in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory, arguing that he’s been deprived from his “preferred” dessert.
The complaint was filed by the 20-year-old soldier’s mother, Adv. Orly Ben Ami, on his behalf, and it claims the man will be unfairly denied the ice cream while on military patrol in the occupied territories, Ynetnews reported.
“The Ben & Jerry’s brand ice cream is his preferred one,” read the complaint, which claimed his “military service requires him to have long and frequent drives in the territories, and often time he purchased ice cream in different businesses.”

Are they going to bomb Vermont?’ Israel gets skewered after claiming Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream boycott is ‘new form of terrorism’

Now, as a result of Ben & Jerry’s recent decision to discontinue sales in the occupied territory and its “judgemental position” on the conflict, the ice-cream fan complained he is “unable to enjoy” the ice cream “like everyone” else. It also paints him as a human rights abuser, the complaint says.
The soldier’s ice cream related woes were quickly mocked on social media, with Philadelphia Inquirer journalist Abraham Gutman joking that the “privileged” soldier’s “right to eat Chunky Monkey while occupying” has been “infringed upon.”

Others compared the news to a recent Onion satire article about a similar, but fictional, Israeli soldier who laments the withdrawal of sales by reminiscing about how he used to stop “by the Ben & Jerry’s store to grab a serving of Phish Food or Cherry Garcia before bursting into a Palestinian family’s home in the middle of the night.”
After Ben & Jerry’s announced last Monday that it would stop selling ice cream in the occupied territory – though not the rest of Israel – Prime Minister Naftali Bennett warned the decision would have “serious consequences, legal and otherwise” and announced that Israel would “act aggressively” toward boycotts. He even said the company’s decision showed it had rebranded as “antisemitic ice cream.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also called on Israelis to not buy Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in protest.