Connect with us

Uncategorized

Shake Shack is coming to Israel in 2024, bringing its burgers and custard to Tel Aviv

(JTA) — Shake Shack, the American fast-casual restaurant chain famous for its burgers and milkshakes, is heading to Israel.

The chain announced Wednesday on social media that a location will open next year in Tel Aviv, which has a robust burger scene — including local chains such as Moses, Burgerim and Black Bar ‘n’ Burger and international franchises including Burger King and McDonald’s. Over the next decade, the company announced, it plans to open 15 locations across Israel.

“We have long admired the rich and diverse food culture of Israel,” Michael Kark, chief global licensing officer of Shake Shack, said in a press release. “We couldn’t be more excited to arrive in Tel Aviv and reach 15 Shacks across Israel by 2033.”

In keeping with its international strategy — Shake Shack has 120 international locations, in addition to its 240 in the United States — the company says it will “collaborate with local purveyors and producers to create a one-of-a-kind Shack experience unique for the Israeli community.” Shake Shack’s Dubai restaurants offer up a “Falafel Shack” patty, for example. Its franchises in South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, have red bean and cherry blossom-flavored shakes.

Shake Shack did not offer details about its local products. The company also did not respond to a request for comment or to questions about whether any of its offerings in Israel would be kosher — something that would make its signature products impossible to pair because they would combine milk and meat.

Shake Shack will partner with two local business conglomerates to set up shop in Israel. The deal has been in the works since at least November, according to the Israeli economic publication Globes.

“We are thrilled to bring the iconic Shake Shack experience to Israel and share our passion for high-quality ingredients, hospitality, and community,” Harel Wizel, a partner in the venture and CEO of Fox Group, a leading Israeli fashion company, said in the press release.

Shake Shack launched in 2001 as a cart in New York City’s Madison Square Park, as a fast casual concept from the high-dining impresario Danny Meyer, who is Jewish and has connected his philanthropic ventures to Jewish values. Several years ago, when he opened Shake Shack’s first location in his native St Louis, he said he had no plans to open in Israel, which he had just visited for the first time.

Meyer told the St Louis Jewish Light that he had spotted a kiosk that “looked an awful lot like Shake Shack” while walking Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, where the median is dotted with tiny cafes.

“As it turned out, it was opened by a guy who worked for me many years ago,” he said. “And on a rainy day, they were packed.”

Shake Shack is the latest in a series of chains to open its doors in Israel. The convenience store chain 7-Eleven opened its first franchise in Israel this year, in Tel Aviv’s Dizengoff Center mall. And the partners who brought Shake Shack to Israel also recently struck an initial deal to bring the global cafe franchise Pret A Manger to the country.

Past openings of major international food and drink franchises in Israel have had a mixed record. McDonald’s did not open any Israeli outposts until 1993 due to boycotts from the Arab world; now, it offers some kosher outposts but does not operate in Israeli West Bank settlements. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s, the U.S. ice cream chain, announced that it would not sell in what it termed “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” sparking a court battle that ended with the pints still on grocery shelves in Israeli settlements.

And after a brief experiment in Israel, Starbucks closed down its operations there two decades ago, due to what analysts attributed to competition from more established local cafes.


The post Shake Shack is coming to Israel in 2024, bringing its burgers and custard to Tel Aviv appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The BBC Tried to Blame Israel — but Exposed Hezbollah Instead

Men carry Hezbollah flags while riding on two wheelers, at the entrance of Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Lebanon, Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani

It is well established that Hezbollah has not only turned southern Lebanon into a base for terrorism targeting Israel but also embedded itself deep within Beirut’s civilian suburbs.

Yet when the BBC reports from those same areas, it appears determined to obscure that reality.

That may not be surprising. As HonestReporting previously documented, Hezbollah tightly controls access and information available to foreign journalists. What reporters see — and therefore what international audiences are shown — is often filtered through Hezbollah’s interests.

When a Sky News crew reported from Lebanon earlier this year, journalists openly acknowledged the restrictions imposed on them. Hezbollah limited where they could go and what they could film following Israeli airstrikes, likely to conceal evidence of terrorist activity.

So, when BBC reporters arrive in Lebanon two months later and somehow fail to find evidence of Hezbollah’s presence, it is hardly coincidental.

The “BBC traces how 10 minutes of Israeli bombing brought devastation to Lebanon” investigation attempts to portray Israel as deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. But the report itself repeatedly undermines that narrative.

The very case study the BBC highlights gives the game away.

In Beirut’s Hay el Sellom suburb, a BBC journalist interviews Mohammed, whose son Abbas was killed in an Israeli airstrike on an apartment building in April 2026.

Mohammed claims that, had he known Hezbollah operatives were nearby, he would have left. But that admission directly undermines the BBC’s broader framing. It reinforces the reality that Israel’s operations are linked to Hezbollah’s presence, not random or indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

Another interviewee claims Israel is bombing Lebanon in an attempt to “take over” the country. Yet the report’s own details point to something else entirely: a campaign directed at Hezbollah infrastructure and operatives in an effort to restore security along Israel’s northern border.

According to the IDF, the April 8 strikes that reportedly killed Abbas also targeted more than 250 Hezbollah terrorists.

Ironically, while touring the suburb, the BBC journalist also filmed martyr posters of Ali Mohammed Ghulam Dahini, reportedly killed in the same strikes — corroborating Israeli media reports identifying him as a Hezbollah operative.

Yet the BBC still avoids acknowledging the obvious implication: these strikes were targeting Hezbollah personnel embedded within civilian areas.

Civilian deaths in war are tragic. But tragedy alone does not determine intent.

Under the laws of armed conflict, counterterrorism operations require assessing proportionality — weighing anticipated military advantage against potential civilian harm. In each example highlighted by the BBC, evidence of Hezbollah’s presence at the strike locations is difficult to ignore.

The report itself notes that Mohammed expressed support for Hezbollah in Arabic-language interviews, praising the group for “defending Lebanon.” But Lebanon would not require “defending” from repeated wars had Hezbollah not transformed civilian neighborhoods into military infrastructure.

The BBC acknowledges that Mohammed gave pro-Hezbollah views when speaking to local media. Yet Mohammed presents himself differently to international English-speaking audiences. That discrepancy raises an obvious question: why?

The answer may lie even closer to home.

Investigative journalist David Collier revealed that Mohammed’s son, Abbas Khair al-Din, was himself affiliated with Hezbollah, citing martyr posters and Hezbollah imagery at his grave.

Had the BBC acknowledged these Hezbollah ties, its central framing — that Israel was recklessly targeting civilians — would have become far more difficult to sustain.

This is not the first time the BBC has minimized or erased Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon.

By omitting Hezbollah’s systematic use of civilian infrastructure, the outlet constructs a narrative in which responsibility falls almost exclusively on Israel while Hezbollah’s role fades into the background.

Most remarkably, despite the evidence presented throughout the report, the BBC still repeats Hezbollah’s denial that it embeds itself among civilians.

The contradiction is striking: the BBC’s own reporting repeatedly points to Hezbollah activity within civilian areas, yet the outlet still amplifies Hezbollah’s denials with minimal scrutiny.

Not all Lebanese civilians support Hezbollah. But the BBC’s inability — or unwillingness — to feature meaningful Lebanese criticism of the terrorist organization reveals how selective the report truly is.

Hezbollah has effectively held Lebanon hostage, exploiting civilians while dragging the country into repeated cycles of conflict.

There is genuine dissent within Lebanon. Many Lebanese are exhausted by Hezbollah’s dominance and want a future free from perpetual war. Yet those voices are almost entirely absent from the BBC’s report.

The BBC intended its report to portray Israel as conducting a campaign against Lebanese civilians.

Instead, it inadvertently documented something else entirely: Hezbollah’s deep entrenchment within civilian infrastructure.

The report repeatedly presents evidence of Hezbollah activity, Hezbollah support, and Hezbollah-linked individuals in the very locations Israel targeted — while simultaneously attempting to deny or downplay the implications.

When media outlets obscure Hezbollah’s use of civilian areas, they do more than distort the story. They sanitize the conditions Hezbollah itself created.

And in this case, the BBC’s own reporting ultimately undermines the narrative it set out to build.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

My artist grandmother nearly made aliyah. I don’t know what she’d think of Israel today

With Mother’s Day coming up, I can’t help but think of my maternal grandmother, who passed away six years ago. And whenever I start thinking about my grandmother, my mind almost always turns to her art.

My grandmother, Kayla Silberberg, had a brief period where she showed her work in art shows in California, selling a few pieces, but most of her paintings from the ‘60s and ‘70s decorate my parents’ house. The majority of her art is multi-colored and not concerned with realism, the objects and figures often disproportionate, the people always bending in ways that implied a lack of a skeletal system. Only a few of her pieces are literal, and it was mostly early work. However, after she’d stopped painting in the ‘70s due to a career change and a reported lack of inspiration, she acquiesced to my mom’s request that she do a realistic sketch of me. (And she even did two!)

I’ve always been particularly fascinated with a painting she did of Israel in 1968. She compressed the country’s geography, the Western Wall practically attached to the Dome of the Rock, separated from a body of water by a handful of small buildings. The water is divided by barbed wire and on the other side, in the piece’s foreground, is a desert landscape, covered by bushes with orange-yellow flowers and multi-colored cacti. There also appears to be a person in the very front, their back turned to the viewer, wearing some type of full-body garment, the tie around their head waving in the back. A similarly shaped figure in what is more clearly a tallit floats near the Western Wall.

My grandmother’s compressed image of Israel from 1968. Image by Kayla Silberberg, courtesy of her familu

When I asked my mom about the barbed wire, she didn’t know what the impetus was for my grandmother to put it there. We’re not certain that our interpretation — that the foreground is Palestinian territory — is accurate. Is there anything to say about how she painted the figures on either side of the barbed wire in very similar shapes? Is the fact that she painted it one year after the Six-Day War relevant to why she painted it?

These weren’t conversations we had with my grandmother when she was alive, and these could very well be modern projections. My fascination with interpreting the work is more a reflection of the historical moment I’m living in than trying to guess what my grandmother would say about Israel today.

I actually have almost no memories of talking to my grandmother about Israel, with the exception of the story of her and my grandfather’s near attempt to immigrate there sometime in the 1960s. (The story goes that when the immigration office told my grandfather, who held a computer-engineering degree, that Israel already had too many engineers, my grandfather was so insulted that he abandoned the plan.)

It wasn’t that my grandmother was apolitical — one of her paintings is titled “Feminism,” a cryptic collage of male and female faces emerging from a colorful cloud. And no one could ever say she lacked strong opinions. It was just one of those conversations we never got around to.

I was 17 when my grandmother died, just on the cusp of being interested in talking about world events with the adults in my life. I imagine that just a couple years later, I would’ve developed more of a consciousness for talking about heavier topics.

That feeling has grown stronger since I moved to New York almost two years ago. My grandmother grew up in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, in a duplex that had her immediate family on top and her grandparents on bottom. The only real story I have of this time in her life is that she used to tell her Orthodox parents she was going to be with her aunt on Shabbat nights, when actually she was sneaking out to go on dates with boys. When I visited Coney Island for the first time last summer, I wondered if she’d often come there herself, and tried to imagine what it would have been like in the ‘40s and ‘50s.

While talking about this story with my mom, she assured me that I was not alone in this. Her grandmother Chaia was 14-years-old when she immigrated to New York from the Pale of Settlement — the area that the Russian government restricted Jews to — in the early 1900s. My mom told me she never asked Chaia about her experiences before and during her immigration.

It’s not just my grandmother I wish I’d been able to have a relationship with as an adult. There’s also my paternal grandfather, who died when I was 14. I think about the conversations I could’ve had with my cousin Reverend Dr. Katie G. Cannon, the first Black woman ordained in the Presbyterian Church of the United States, if she’d lived just two more years, after I took my first sociology and religious studies classes. What would I have spoken about with my grandmother, who had a later career as a college guidance counselor, if she had lived to see me go to Penn? Or if she had been around for my start at the Forward, which she read every week while it was in print?

I’ve previously written about the project I worked on with my parents, where I recorded conversations with them about all the objects in our home (minus the modern appliances). Through that, I got answers to questions I would’ve never thought to ask about my parents’ lives and had many conversations about my grandmother’s art. But these were mostly surface level observations. And none were about the Israel painting, which ironically had to be moved to storage to make room for my grandmother’s other belongings after she died.

Although I wish I’d had the idea for the project while all four of my grandparents were still alive, I still have the chance to ask my paternal grandmother questions about her life — and his own — that I haven’t thought to ask before. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what made Kayla paint Israel the way she did. The fact that her paintings bring up so many emotions and questions for me tells me that she still lives on within my heart.

The post My artist grandmother nearly made aliyah. I don’t know what she’d think of Israel today appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Miss Israel Melanie Shiraz Says Mamdani’s Wife Snubbed Her Because She’s From Jewish State

Melanie Shiraz being crowned Miss Israel 2025. Photo: Simon Soong | Edgar Entertainment

Melanie Shiraz, who represented Israel in the 2025 Miss Universe pageant, said on Wednesday that the wife of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani refused to take a photograph with her because the beauty queen is from the Jewish state.

Shiraz posted on Instagram a video that features a short clip of herself with Rama Duwaji, the first lady of New York City. The Israel native said in the video’s voice-over that she met Mamdani’s wife by chance in a coffee shop in New York City and the two sat next to each other. Duwaji was willing to take a photo with the beauty queen “until she found out that I was Miss Israel; until I told her that as an Israeli, I was disappointed in seeing the kind of rhetoric she was promoting online,” Shiraz said.

“I told her as part of my ideology as an Israeli is to have productive dialogue in which not one side is constantly dehumanized. But despite that, despite the setting being calm, the moment she found out I was Israeli, she refused to have a conversation with me,” continued the graduate of the University of California, Berkeley.

“If you can publicly apologize for dehumanizing Israelis, but you can’t get yourself to humanize one when you come face-to-face with them in real life, what does that say about you and what does that say about the state of our politics considering that is the wife of the mayor of New York City?” Shiraz added.

A Texas-born illustrator with Syrian roots, Duwaji has previously uploaded or “liked” numerous anti-Israel posts on social media. She has also “liked” several online posts that celebrated the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack against Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, and even defended the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, describing it as Palestinian “resistance.”

It was discovered that Duwaji shared social media posts praising female Palestinian terrorists who participated in plane hijackings and bombings in the 1960s and early 1970s. In 2015, she shared a post in which someone else wrote that Tel Aviv was occupying Palestinian land and “shouldn’t exist.” Duwaji also illustrated an essay co-edited by a Palestinian-American activist author who described the Oct. 7 attack as “spectacular” and called Jewish Israelis “rootless soulless ghouls.”

In April, Duwaji apologized for “harmful” social media posts she made as a teenager, which included anti-gay and anti-Black language, but did not directly address her more recent anti-Israel social media activity.

Mamdani, who has faced his own share of criticism for anti-Israel comments and actions, has previously defended his wife by saying she is a “private person.”

In the caption of her Instagram video, Shiraz said she was “not particularly” surprised by her interaction with Duwaji at the coffee shop in New York City.

“It is easy to apologize without meaningfully changing one’s behavior,” Shiraz explained. “It is easy to claim opposition to dehumanization in principle, but far more difficult to embody that in practice. She was polite throughout. But the shift in demeanor was evident, and the lack of willingness to engage even more so.”

“I approached the interaction with openness to a genuine, respectful conversation. That openness was not reciprocated,” Shiraz added. “And that, perhaps, is the more telling point: how often this disconnect appears, and how normalized it has become.”

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News