Connect with us

RSS

Did Yale remove the word ‘Israeli’ from a campus couscous dish? Yes and no.

(JTA) — Fights over Israel and the Palestinians on campus have taken place on quads across the country, in classrooms and, recently, in the halls of Congress.

This week, at Yale University, the debate moved to the dining hall. And from there, of course, to social media.

On Monday, sophomore Sahar Tartak posted on X, formerly Twitter, that a dish offered on campus named “Israeli couscous salad with spinach and tomatoes” had been renamed to remove the word “Israeli.” Her tweets on the change were shared thousands of times.

“Imagine returning to your dining hall to find that salad labels were renamed to remove mention of the salads being ‘Israeli,’” wrote Tartak, who has written in recent weeks about facing hostility on campus as a pro-Israel student. “That happened at Yale this week. It’s the subtle changes and redactions that are the most pernicious.”

The claim was amplified by Libs of TikTok, the massively popular right-wing social media account run by Chaya Raichik, who is Jewish, and who included images of the Israeli couscous salad label before and after the name change.

Whether the change had actually taken place, however, was unclear. The following day, Viktor Kagan, another student, shared an image of the salad bar on Dec. 12 that showed that the word “Israeli” had returned to the name of the dish, spurring allegations that the whole story had been made up.

Neither Kagan nor Tartak responded to JTA requests for comment. But it turns out they were both right. A representative from Yale’s office of communication told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that in July, Yale Hospitality, which oversees campus dining, decided to remove ethnic and geographical markers from food labels.

“Authenticity of the food and naming of the recipes have been a concern brought to us by students in the past. There were times that they felt our food did not ‘authentically’ represent the country or ethnicity referenced in the name,” the spokesperson said in an email. “To that end, our team made the decision to remove names of countries and ethnicities from recipes.”

But the statement added that because “Israeli couscous” is an ingredient in the dish at issue, it was an exception to the rule: The word “Israeli” had indeed been removed, but would be put back.

“In this case, Israeli Couscous is indeed an actual ingredient and is explicitly listed on the ingredient list,” the email said. “Considering it is the main ingredient, it is appropriate to remain in the title, and we will correct this oversight.”

The kerfuffle not only played into the heated debates over the Israel-Hamas war that have beset universities nationwide and led to the resignation of the president of the University of Pennsylvania, another Ivy League school. It also reflected how food — what it is called, and to whom it is credited — has long played into discussions of Israeli and Palestinian culture and history.

Nir Avieli, a cultural anthropologist at Israel’s Ben Gurion University who studies food, said debates over which foods are Israeli and Palestinian serve as a proxy for which people has a stronger claim to nationhood. That, in turn, ties into who should control the territory encompassing Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

“When you deny Israel for the unique cuisine, you’re saying this is not a real culture. How could they have a cuisine? They are not a culture, they are not a people,” Avieli said. “This denial of the existence of Israeli cuisine is parallel to the denial of Palestinian cuisine by Israelis.”

“If a cuisine exists, it means that the culture exists,” he added. “It means that there is a people with a history, with terroir. And then if you deny the existence of these people, how can they have a cuisine?”

Those debates are especially charged on campus, he said, where students are used to spending their time discussing world affairs and see those conversations reflected in what dishes they choose in the dining hall.

“Food is politics. And you see why people get upset,” he said. “They go to lunch, they want to have a rest. They’ve been studying in classes, they’re doing political science, they’re debating. They are pro-Israel, they are anti-Israel, they are antisemitic, they are whatever they are. But when they go to lunch, they want to have a break. And they go and they want to have a break and then they get Israeli couscous and they get very upset. Because they get a political thorn on their side.”

For what it’s worth, Israeli couscous is not really couscous at all, in fact. In Israel, the dish is called “ptitim” and was an invention of the Osem company during the early 1950s, when Israeli food was rationed, at the behest of then-Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Ptitim are a wheat-based rice substitute, extruded through a round mold and then cut and toasted. It is sometimes referred to as “Ben-Gurion’s rice” because its original shape was oblong and rice-like. Today, ptitim come in both oblong and pearl shapes.

Ptitim resembles a similar Palestinian dish called maftoul made from bulgur and wheat flour. It is also similar to an Eastern European Jewish egg noodle called farfel; a Sardinian semolina-based pasta called fregula and other foods.

“Nothing is original. Always things evolve. And they evolve in contact with other cultures,” Avieli said.

“One big mistake that people have with their perception of culture [is] that culture, and specifically food, is static, is my grandmother’s,” he added. “The whole idea of something being claimed to be pure and of a specific culture is completely wrong historically. But of course, it’s political.”

Ptitim didn’t even get the name “Israeli couscous” until 1993, when Israeli-born chef Mika Sharon, who worked in the kitchen of Tribeca Grill in New York, invited executive chef Don Pintabona home for dinner, and he took a bite of the ptitim Sharon served to her daughter. Pintabona soon added it to the menu at Tribeca Grill, serving it alongside seared sea bass and calling it “Israeli couscous.” The dish took off over the next decade, according to the publication Taste.

In recent years, it has been common for online discourse to veer into arguments over who really invented “Israeli salad,” or questions about whether hummus and falafel can be considered Israeli or Palestinian, or whether they are Egyptian or Jordanian or Syrian or Lebanese.

Avieli remarked that the war between Russia and Ukraine could also be bringing up parallel ethnic tensions when it comes to food. (Borscht is a classic example of a disputed food that Russians say is Russian and Ukrainians say is Ukrainian. Its English spelling, with a “t,” is attributed to the Yiddish pronunciation, which was brought to the United States by Ashkenazi Jews.)

He recalled watching on live television when a right-wing nationalist member of the Israeli Knesset, Rehavam Ze’evi, crossed off the word Arab in front of “Arab salad” on a restaurant menu, and wrote “Israeli” in its place.

In 2018, Virgin Atlantic removed the word “Palestinian” from an in-flight couscous salad that included a mix of maftoul and couscous, tomatoes, cucumber, parsley and mint after complaints from pro-Israel supporters who threatened to boycott the airline and accused Virgin Atlantic of being “terrorist sympathizers.” The name was changed to “couscous salad.”

“This battle over identity through food is something that is ongoing everywhere, not only here,” Avieli said.


The post Did Yale remove the word ‘Israeli’ from a campus couscous dish? Yes and no. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

US Backs Israel’s Ban on UNRWA Gaza Aid Operations at World Court

A truck, marked with United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) logo, crosses into Egypt from Gaza, at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, during a temporary truce between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah, Egypt, Nov. 27, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

Israel cannot be forced to allow the UN Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA to operate in Gaza, the United States said on Wednesday at a World Court hearing in The Hague.

Israel last year passed a law that banned UNRWA from operating in the country, as it said the organization had employed members of Hamas who took part in the attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

The UN said in August that nine UNRWA staff may have been involved in the assault and had been fired. Another Hamas commander, confirmed by UNRWA as one of its employees, was killed in Gaza in October, according to Israel.

Beyond the Israeli government, research organizations and media outlets have publicized findings showing numerous UNRWA-employed staff, including teachers and school principals, are active Hamas members, some of whom were directly involved in the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel, while many others openly celebrated it.

The United Nations General Assembly in December asked the UN’s top court to give an advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations to facilitate aid to Palestinians that is delivered by states and international groups, including the United Nations.

At the third day of hearings on the matter, the US said Israel had the right to determine which organizations could provide basic needs to the population of the Palestinian territories.

“An occupational power retains a margin of appreciation concerning which relief schemes to permit,” US State Department legal adviser Joshua Simmons said.

“Even if an organization offering relief is an impartial humanitarian organization, and even if it is a major actor, occupation law does not compel an occupational power to allow and facilitate that specific actor’s relief operations.”

Simmons also stressed the “serious concerns” Israel has about UNRWA‘s impartiality.

UN and Palestinian representatives at the opening of hearings on Monday had accused Israel of breaking international law by refusing to let aid into Gaza.

Since March 2, Israel has completely cut off all supplies to the 2.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip, and food stockpiled during a ceasefire at the start of the year has all but run out. Experts and Israeli officials have long that Hamas steals much of the aid to fuel its terrorist operations and sells some of the remainder to Gaza’s civilian population at an increased price.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said in Jerusalem on Monday that Israel had submitted its position in writing to the hearings, which he described as a “circus.”

The post US Backs Israel’s Ban on UNRWA Gaza Aid Operations at World Court first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews

April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.

Last week Israel commemorated Yom HaShoah, the country’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.

As I stood at silent attention along with an entire country, listening to the one minute long commemorative siren and thinking of the role the Holocaust has played in our collective past, I couldn’t help but hear its haunting echoes in our present.

Harvard University recently filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, purportedly in defense of “academic freedom.” The specific “freedom” Harvard is defending is to harass, intimidate, and physically assault Jewish students with impunity, and in violation of Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Harvard now claims that the White House’s actions violate the university’s First Amendment rights. They do not.

A quick note: at RealityCheck we encourage our readers to support (and oppose) policies, rather than people. How one feels about any politician (including President Trump) should be irrelevant to one’s opinion on the safety of Jewish students, and the proper enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s what you need to know to build your own, well-informed opinion.

Since October 7, 2023, Harvard University has been host to more than a year and a half of attacks on Jewish students, including: physical assaults, vandalism, harassment, demonstrations, divestment resolutions, classroom disruptions, calls for “intifada” and other death threats, and a disgraced university president who infamously testified before Congress that calling for the genocide of Jews might not be antisemitic because, “it depends on the context.”

The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard University comply with a list of requirements to ensure basic safety and equal protection for all students on campus, including: banning masks by protesters, cooperating with law enforcement, reviewing disciplinary policies, increasing accountability by those responsible for student safety, and an end to so-called “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) programs, which for years have been used to limit Jewish and Asian admissions to Harvard (and which have been rejected by the United States Supreme Court).

Upon Harvard’s refusal to comply with its demands, the administration made good on a threat to pull $2 billion in Federal funding, with the promise of more cuts to come, as well as a request that the IRS consider revoking the university’s tax exempt status.

In its lawsuit, Harvard claims it has a First Amendment right to refuse the White House’s Title VI demands. It does not.

As a general matter, the First Amendment guarantees the right to all manner of abhorrent personal expression, including: racism, obscenity, outright lies, victim blaming and victim shaming, and even the right to oppose basic American values. However, nothing in the US Constitution obligates the American people to pay for such activities.

More specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires that, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

In this case, Jewish students at Harvard most certainly suffered exclusion, and were most certainly denied the benefits of a safe education, at an institution that is Federally funded to the tune of billions of US taxpayer dollars.

Harvard has objected not only that the funding cuts are illegal under the First Amendment, but also immoral because they will impact a variety of research programs that provide positive benefits to the world, including in fields like health care. Yet a long line of Supreme Court cases, following the 1974 precedent of Bob Jones University v. Johnson, disagree. These cases hold that, by choosing to violate the Civil Rights Act, a university endangers Federal funding for all of its programs, and that it is absolutely appropriate for the Federal government to use such funding as leverage to ensure compliance. In effect, the Supreme Court’s view is that it is the university, and not the White House, that is endangering its own programs: by permitting racism within its ranks, in violation of Federal funding rules.

Harvard does have a potentially successful argument that the White House did not follow certain procedural requirements, such as providing notice and an administrative hearing. However, even if successful, this argument will not prevent Federal funding cuts, but will merely require the White House to fulfill the mechanical requirements before moving forward.

Harvard’s campus newspaper has touted an open letter signed by some 100 Jewish students objecting to the White House’s demands, claiming that President Trump is causing more harm than good. However, those 100 signatures comprise only 4.6% of Harvard’s approximately 2,300 Jewish students. In other words, over 95% of Harvard’s Jewish population did not sign the letter, including students such as Shabbos Kestenbaum, who is pursuing one of several ongoing Title VI lawsuits against the university, and students like Yoav Segev and Moshe Y. Dembitzer, who were recently a part of related suits.

The case has been set for oral arguments on July 21 before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, who previously ruled in favor of Harvard’s racially motivated admissions policies. Judge Burroughs’ decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

To get an idea of how Harvard’s lawsuit is likely to play out, either at the trial level or eventually on appeal, one may look to the ongoing case of Gartenberg v Cooper Union, the New York college where students attempted to hide in a library while under violent, antisemitic attack, just weeks after the massacre of October 7. In February, Judge John P. Cronan vigorously denied the college’s motion to dismiss stating, “The Court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI. These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be.”

I could not have said it better myself, and so I won’t attempt to: these events took place in 2023 — not 1943.

Excluding Jews from academic life through violence and intimidation, all while cloaked in the garment of arrogant moralizing, was one of the most notable hallmarks of early Nazi Germany, long before such exclusion became codified into Nazi law. Whether history will repeat itself depends on what America does next.

This year, on Yom HaShoah, “never again” must mean now.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

The post Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

My Journey at LinkedIn: Censorship, Silence, and the Cost of Speaking Up for Israel

In this photo illustration a LinkedIn logo is seen displayed on a smartphone screen with a computer keyboard in the background in Athens, Greece on January 10, 2022. Photo: by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto/Reuters

Since 2012, I have been an active member of LinkedIn. Like many professionals around the world, I saw it as a place to connect, grow, and engage with a global network. For years, that vision held true. LinkedIn was a space for ideas, innovation, and respectful dialogue.

But everything changed after the 2014 Gaza War.

The platform slowly transformed. Political discourse became more prevalent — and with it, a rising tide of anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism. The successful spread of Pallywood-style propaganda seeped into what was once a neutral professional environment. I began to see not just criticism of Israeli policy, but open hatred of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists.

As the founder of the NGO Time To Stand Up For Israel, I took to LinkedIn with purpose. For years, I posted three times a day — informing, educating, and reporting, often in a journalistic tone. My goal was simple: to share facts, tell stories, and create awareness. And for a while, it worked.

Until it didn’t.

Without warning, my account was deleted — silenced through mass reporting and doxing campaigns that targeted pro-Israel voices. I was not alone. Other voices supporting Israel — Jewish users, Israeli professionals, and Zionist advocates — were censored, shut down, or swept off the platform.

No appeal. No explanation. No justice.

In my case, I did contact LinkedIn — and to their credit, they responded. But they absolutely refuse to tell me why my account had been flagged or disabled. I had no chance to even have a discussion — let alone see — what content they said violated their terms of service.

My account was eventually restored, but then I ran into the same problems again. And once again, I could not have any access to LinkedIn’s decision-making or their justification for removing content.

LinkedIn, a company now owned by Microsoft, has made itself nearly untouchable. There is no easily accessible help desk. They demand highly confidential documents like a passport copy just to consider reinstatement. And even then, there’s often silence.

Meanwhile, antisemitic hate thrives. I have personally seen posts that glorify Hitler, that mock the Holocaust, that spew vile messages like — and many of these posts remain unchallenged and unremoved.

Why? Because LinkedIn is too big, too powerful, too shielded. Today, LinkedIn boasts over 1.2 billion users and monetizes its platform with high-priced subscriptions and services. Yet with all this power comes an absence of responsibility.

Many people remain largely unaware of LinkedIn’s selective censorship, its opaque processes, and its AI-driven responses that leave users powerless. Real people lose their livelihoods, businesses, and professional networks overnight — without explanation, and often without recourse.

We were told that LinkedIn was a place for professionals. For connection. For opportunity. But if speaking up for Israel gets you banned, while celebrating Hitler gets you likes, what kind of platform is this really?

And more importantly — when does it stop?

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.

The post My Journey at LinkedIn: Censorship, Silence, and the Cost of Speaking Up for Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News