Ben and Jerry's Fallacy?

The owners of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are boycotting Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. In this video - Ben and Jerry: Hypocrites?  - a woman suggests they're hypocrites because they aren't also boycotting Georgia and Texas, where abortions are banned.

Using that same logic, we could criticize people who fought apartheid in South Africa while ignoring anti-abortion states. Or we could criticize people who condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq but have nothing to say about states where it's legal to shoot wolves.

Therefore, I would call this an example of comparing apples and oranges. And yet that doesn't seem to be the whole story.

Is there a "matter of priorities" fallacy? Everyone is outraged by something, but no one can be outraged by everything. Some problems are simply bigger or more important than others.

I also sense a possible Tu Quoque fallacy. Israel is quick to condemn Palestinians and Iranians, but they give their supporters a free ride.

Does anyone else see a fallacy or fallacies in the woman's argument?

My last blog post/podcast addresses this point: https://www.bobennett.com/posts/bobennett/stay-calm-enjoy-life.html

Bottom line, there are millions of "causes," and we can't possibly put our resources towards all of them. Nobody actually suggests we should, but they find moral/rational fault when one doesn't support the cause of their particular choice. This is a failure of critical thinking. Using a reductio, this would mean that everyone on the planet is at fault for not supporting some worthy cause.

sounds like an opinion or just blaming game. " comparing apples and oranges" maybe and that would be unequal comparison. Could also be red herring.