Tuesday, July 20, 2021

The Truth About Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream in Israel

I guess it's a slow week for big news, since only now are people realizing that when they buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream, they're supporting radical Leftist political issues, including those opposing Israel's security and the 1967 Six Days War survival/victory. 

Check your history books. No other country that survived a war in which its enemies had sworn/aimed for its destruction has ever faced demands to retreat from land won in such a war

My husband bought this container of Ben & Jerry's
chocolate ice cream in the local supermarket.
The licensee who runs Ben & Jerry's here in Israel is up a creek. The people who control the actual business are Radical Leftists who are cracking the whip in anger because the Israeli "end" is selling all over the country including places like... Shiloh. Apparently the licensee has been warned that his license won't be renewed since he refuses to tow the party line.

Therefore, many Israelis are davka buying Ben & Jerry's ice cream to show their support for the gutsy guy. 

Those of you ice cream eaters living outside of Israel, you have a choice:
  • Support anti-Israel radical Leftists by buying Ben & Jerry's ice cream.
  • Support the State of Israel -all of it- and patronize other ice cream brands.
I recommend Häagen-Dazs, which was founded by Rose and Reuben Mattus, who were generous donors to many institutions here in Israel. I even met them once when they came to Shiloh. IMHO davka Häagen-Dazs is a far more superior ice cream.

8 comments:

Sammy Finkelman said...

No other country that survived a war in which its enemies had sworn/aimed for its destruction has ever faced demands to retreat from land won in such a war.

What about France?

"France and Belgium, facing economic and international pressure, accepted the Dawes Plan to restructure Germany's payment of war reparations in 1924 and withdrew their troops from the Ruhr by August 1925....

....In German politics, the French occupation of the Rhineland accelerated the formation of right-wing parties. Disoriented by the defeat in the war, conservatives in 1922 founded a consortium of nationalist associations, the "Vereinigten Vaterländischen Verbände Deutschlands" (VVVD, United Patriotic Associations of Germany). The goal was to forge a united front of the right. In the climate of national resistance against the French Ruhr invasion, the VVVD reached its peak strength. It advocated policies of uncompromising monarchism, corporatism and opposition to the Versailles settlement. However, it lacked internal unity and money and so never managed to unite the right. It had faded away by the late 1920s, as the NSDAP (Nazi party) emerged"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Rhineland

"1926: Withdrawal from the Northern Zone around Cologne
1929: Withdrawal from the Central Zone around Koblenz
1930: Withdrawal from the Southern Zone around Mainz, resulting in the end of the occupation
1936: Remilitarization of the Rhineland by German troops under Hitler, on March 7.

Sammy Finkelman said...

From, the second article:

" General Henry Tureman Allen reported to the US Secretary of State that from the start of the occupation until June 1920 there were 66 cases of formal accusations against colored colonial troops, out of which there were 28 convictions, and admits there were many more unreported cases.[15] Despite these occasional cases, "the wholesale atrocities by French negro Colonial troops alleged in the German press, such as the alleged abductions, followed by rape, mutilation, murder and concealment of the bodies of the victims are false and intended as political propaganda".[16]

Batya said...

France is massive, especially compared to Israel which hadn't a chance, but was still victorious. And I don't understand the relevance of second letter. I'll try to figure it out later when I'm more awake.

Sammy Finkelman said...

France was massive, but the withdrawals in 1925, 1926, 1929 and 1930 can clearly be seen to have been a mistake. Security can rest of having a suerior military, Or on goodwill,. But not in the absence of both of them

The second article deals with the occupation of the west an of the Rhine (the first was the Ruhr)

The quote is about false accusations about the French occupation of Frankfurt on Rhine, which ended in 1920.

Here is a map, with dates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Rhineland#/media/File:Western_Germany_1923_en.png

Sammy Finkelman said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_occupation_of_Frankfurt

Sammy Finkelman said...

In World War I, unlike in 1870, France was in danger of being destroyed. There was no stopping point to German aggression.

(Bismark said the most important fact of the 19th century was that England and America spoke the same language,

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-16007-2_5

'At the end of the nineteenth century, on being asked to name the single greatest fact in modern political history, the German statesman Otto von Bismarck answered: ‘The inherent and permanent fact that North America speaks English.’

I think that could refer to the decision by Prussia/Germany to withdraw from France in 1871 and only impose a financial penalty and annex Alsace and Lorraine. (plus let the Paris Commune form to show the dangers of socialism, although that was really the dangers of socialists.)

But by 1914, the German General staff, which planned for a war and rigged things so that there sold be a general European war, had forgotten all about that. Austria Hungary was actually sent a message that declaring war on Serbia would not start a war, when in reality it would because a Russian mobilizaton would be responded to by a German mobilization - which even at that stage involved occupying Luxembourg -, and Germany's secret war plan called for conquering France before confronting Russia. And they would also invade Belgium right at the start.

The generals manipulated the Kaiser and everybody else.

Germany could not conquer France because England would not allow that, and it could not defeat England because of America. Bismarck knew that in 1870, but the German generals in 1914 did not.

Germany was victorious on all fronts (to the extent that all fighting took place outside of Germany) but could not force a peace, as it was said.

If it was even interested in ending the war. Anyway France and Britain wanted Germany to pay for it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

errata corrected: ...the German General staff, which planned for a war and rigged things so that there should be a general European war

This took place at almost the last time it could. Several chances for World Wat I erupt previously had been averted and the generals were moving out of their positions.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Errata corrected:

The quote is about false accusations about the French occupation of Frankfurt am Main which lasted from April 6 to May 17, 1920.

The other Frankfurt is much smaller, and much further to the east (since 1945, on the border with Poland) and is called Frankfurt an der Oder.