Scoop of Hypocrisy: Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Melts Down at Senate Hearing Over Gaza Protest

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In a theatrical yet troubling disruption on Capitol Hill, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, was arrested on Wednesday after interfering with a Senate committee hearing to protest U.S. military aid to Israel. According to a report in The New York Times, the 74-year-old ice cream mogul joined a small group of demonstrators who interrupted Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presentation of President Trump’s proposed federal budget, choosing to stage a performance better suited for social media than serious debate.

Cohen, who has long leveraged his celebrity status as a businessman to push radical political causes, shouted that Congress was “paying to bomb poor kids in Gaza” while allegedly “kicking poor kids off Medicaid in the U.S.” The Times reported that Capitol Police quickly removed the protesters, and Cohen was charged with crowding, obstructing, or incommoding—a misdemeanor offense. Though released shortly thereafter, his arrest is emblematic of a larger pattern: using inflammatory rhetoric and emotionally charged images to attack Israel while remaining silent on the crimes of terror groups like Hamas.

In his own video posted online, Cohen demanded lawmakers “let food to starving kids,” referring to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. While the suffering of civilians in any conflict is a legitimate concern, Cohen’s narrative conveniently ignores the root causes of this conflict, most notably Hamas’s heinous October 7 attack on Israel, which killed over 1,200 innocent civilians and led to the abduction of 251 others—acts that have triggered Israel’s defensive campaign in Gaza.

Yet Cohen’s selective outrage is nothing new. As The New York Times has chronicled over the years, Cohen and his partner Jerry Greenfield have made a career out of politicizing ice cream. In 2021, their company publicly declared that it would halt sales in what it termed the “Israeli-occupied West Bank,” citing inconsistency with the company’s “values.” This move sparked widespread backlash in Israel and across the Jewish world, where many saw it as an act of economic warfare against the Jewish state. As The Times report noted, Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s parent company, suffered from the fallout and was eventually forced to sell off the Israeli portion of its operations.

The irony, however, is that Cohen and Greenfield—both self-described Jewish supporters of Israel—claim in a New York Times opinion piece that opposing Israeli policy is not antisemitic. While criticism of policy is certainly within the bounds of democratic discourse, the duo has crossed the line into singling out Israel in ways that reinforce double standards, particularly when they remain conspicuously silent on human rights abuses in authoritarian regimes.

According to the information provided in The New York Times report, Cohen’s most recent protest falls into a broader campaign to undermine U.S. support for Israel at a time when the Jewish state is under existential threat. His assertion that U.S. aid to Israel is somehow being funneled away from American social services such as Medicaid is a false equivalency that trivializes both domestic poverty and the strategic value of supporting America’s only democratic ally in the Middle East.

Cohen’s tactics also expose a disturbing ignorance—or willful dismissal—of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes, a fact well-documented by Israeli defense sources and corroborated by multiple international watchdogs. Calls for increased humanitarian access into Gaza, while emotionally compelling, must be balanced against legitimate security concerns and the frequent diversion of aid by terror operatives.

Moreover, the Times has also detailed ongoing legal disputes between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever, particularly a lawsuit alleging that Unilever “censored” the ice cream brand’s political statements and terminated its CEO over activist messaging. These claims, denied by Unilever, suggest a continued and escalating effort by the Ben & Jerry’s brand to use its corporate platform as a mouthpiece for one-sided political activism masquerading as human rights advocacy.

In stark contrast, Israel’s leaders reacted with justifiable outrage to the provocations of Cohen and others like him. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental moral difference between a democratic state defending its citizens and terrorist organizations that deliberately target civilians. Yet voices such as Cohen’s seek to blur this distinction, framing Israel’s military actions as morally equivalent to the atrocities of Hamas.

Let’s be clear: Israel does not need lectures on morality from a man who has never held elected office, nor faced the burden of protecting a civilian population from rocket fire, suicide bombings, and underground terror tunnels. Cohen’s protests, though couched in humanitarian terms, effectively serve to delegitimize the only Jewish state while giving political cover to those who openly vow its destruction.

As The New York Times noted, Unilever has since announced plans to spin off its ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry’s, possibly in an effort to distance itself from the brand’s increasingly polarizing political stance. It’s a move that many observers see as long overdue.

In the end, Ben Cohen’s protest is less about peace or justice and more about self-aggrandizement. His actions, which play well with fringe anti-Israel circles on social media, do little to foster constructive dialogue or genuine solutions. Instead, they deepen divisions, spread misinformation, and embolden those who seek to scapegoat Israel for the broader complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

The U.S. Senate hearing Cohen disrupted was meant to discuss fiscal policy—not to be hijacked by anti-Israel agitators exploiting humanitarian rhetoric. The fact that he used it as a platform to peddle biased narratives underscores just how far removed he is from reality on the ground—and from the values of fairness and accuracy he claims to champion.

If Mr. Cohen truly wishes to advocate for human rights, he might begin by acknowledging the real threats posed by groups like Hamas and standing in solidarity with those—Jewish, Arab, and otherwise—who seek genuine peace, not propaganda. Until then, his protests are nothing more than performative distractions dressed in moral pretense.