What is with college students making everything political? One would think food—especially a delicious Mediterranean spread enjoyed by both Israelis and Palestinians—would be spared this injustice. Apparently, nothing goes unnoticed at the Ivy League. Not even hummus.
Why is such a harmless food item being spotlighted, one might ask? The Princeton Committee on Palestine is pushing for the removal of Sabra Hummus from University Stores. They cite Sabra’s partial owner—the Strauss Group—as a supplier of care packages to the Golani Brigade of the Israeli Defense Forces. This attack on hummus is an attack on Israel’s legitimacy. Efforts to delegitimize the state of Israel under the guise of divestment from companies funding Israel—which is a very familiar tactic at UC-San Diego and UC-Berkeley—are foolish. Hummus is a harmless late night snack, not a political ploy.
Samson Schatz, chair of Tigers for Israel, writes about Sabra’s shareholders in The Daily Princetonian:
The truth is that 50 percent of Sabra Dipping Company is owned by PepsiCo, and 50 percent is owned by the Strauss Group, an Israeli company. The Strauss Group sponsors a range of community outreach programs, including raising money for premature infants in Serbia and providing scholarship funds to children with cancer. The Strauss Group’s list of projects also includes a “support the troops” program, for which the company provides care packages of free hummus to Israeli soldiers in the Golani Brigade. The company has not been providing weapons or ammunition; it is simply giving the 18-year-olds in uniform free hummus and a little moral support.
He also notes the irrelevant nature of highlighting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of boycotting Sabra hummus:
You are being deceived because you are being made to believe that putting pressure on Israel is sufficient to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. The leaders of the anti-Sabra campaign imply that by attacking Sabra hummus or even divesting from Israel we can bring peace to the region. Israel is already making compromises. While we have been blinded by frivolous debate over a creamy, chickpea delicacy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday proposed to his cabinet a 90-day extension to the freeze on building settlements in the West Bank. Netanyahu hopes that the borders of the future Palestinian state will be decided within this time frame, which would render further discussion of settlement construction in Israeli territory moot. The Middle East conflict is more complicated than hummus. I strongly encourage this campus to focus its intellectual energy on the real issues rather than shift its focus to minute, immature and pathetic distractions.
The “Save the Hummus!–Vote Against the Sabra Hummus Boycott” event page on facebook notes backpedaling from the PCP on November 19th, 2010:
We are very excited to hear that, despite its initial advertising, PCP has backpedaled and no longer claims that its referendum is a direct call for the University to stop selling Sabra Hummus. Although the word “boycott” is not officially part of the referendum text, we still oppose this referendum because of its significant ambiguity and because it unfairly singles out Sabra Hummus. The exact text of the anti-Sabra ballot resolution will be as follows: “On behalf of the student body, the USG will make a formal recommendation to University Dining Services that it offer an alternative to Sabra Hummus in all university retail locations.” This language is extremely ambiguous: does “offer an alternative to” mean an alternative in addition to or instead of Sabra? Although PCP originally aimed for this resolution to convince Dining Services to replace Sabra hummus with an alternative, as stated in the information on PCP’s Facebook group page and on PCP’s electronic petition, Bitran and PCP have since changed their message regarding the intent of this confusing text. In a statement made to the Prince prior to the article published today, Bitran wrote that this referendum “asks the university to provide an alternative to Sabra. We don’t know what the university will do, whether they will sell Sabra and an alternative side by side, or how many of each.”
It is crucial that student governments refrain from political issues, especially when they are so divisive. Last year at UC-San Diego, our student government was faced with a resolution urging divestment from companies operating in “war zones” [read the fine print: doing business with Israel] — specifically naming companies with shareholdings there like GE. Regardless, political controversies should have no place in student government, which is supposed to be a voice for all of the students.
Tigers for Israel cites valid points in defense of Sabra hummus and Israel.
1. This boycott is far too broad a means of challenging human rights violations. Not all Golani Brigade soldiers are guilty of criminal behavior, and many of those who have committed crimes have, as acknowledged by PCP’s very own pamphlets, been convicted by Israeli courts. It is not right to hold the majority of soldiers responsible for the few, just as it would not be right to boycott Palestinian products because of the actions of a few terrorists. 2. The logic behind this boycott could be extended to include boycotts of various goods produced by American firms supporting US soldiers. Americans were guilty of terrible abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Nonetheless, American courts still convict those who are guilty of war crimes. Should we boycott Boeing due to its contracts with the US Army just because of isolated cases of human rights violations by American soldiers? Absolutely not! 3. (NOTE: This paragraph was written prior to PCP’s backpedaling on the meaning of the referendum.) The advocates of the boycott condemn the lack of consumer choice available on campus when it comes to hummus. But their position is not the one of enhanced consumer choice. We would love to see the University offer multiple brands of hummus in its stores. When we have more options, everyone wins. But that DOES NOT require banning Sabra Hummus. The reason Sabra is the hummus brand of choice as of now is that it is very popular across the country. In fact, it was recently reported that Sabra sold 40% of all hummus in the US. The University’s decision to make Sabra its default hummus choice is perfectly logical. We’d all love more options, but eliminating Sabra from the equation simply is not the answer. 4. Some speak of Arabs being forced to support crimes against their own people since Sabra Hummus is the only brand available to them. While we do not argue that Sabra MUST be allowed to have a U-Store monopoly, we think it absurd to suggest that supporting a company that sends care packages to Israeli soldiers is indirect support for war crimes. 5. Context is critical here. This boycott unfairly targets Israel. We’re not seeing an attempt, for example, to boycott products which somehow support the Saudi government despite its truly widespread human rights abuses. And even were the student body to deem boycotts targeted at Israeli goods to be acceptable, where would this stop? Would we boycott Microsoft, Intel, Victoria’s Secret, and other mainstream companies based heavily in Israel? Surely the student body is not willing to take this misguided effort to its logical conclusion. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complicated issue, and we concede that there’s room for improvement on all sides. Placing ALL of the blame on Israel is not going to bring peace to the region. Instead of furthering these divides through arbitrary boycotting, we should work to build bridges between both sides by engaging each other in constructive dialogue to find ways to end the conflict.
Frankly, I like my hummus and hate seeing this product go down by those eager to undermine Israel. Student governments have rejected all attempts to divest from Israel because it is pointless, divisive, and inappropriate to deliberate. Let’s keep it that way.
Tagged as: bans, divestment, hummus, IDF, Israel, israeli defense forces, Princeton, sabra hummus, the california review, the daily princetonian, the Strauss Group, tigers for israel
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
While it is perfectly OK to open minded, we just have to remember to not let our brains falls out…
That’s OK Princeton. I understand.
You just need to graduate and spent some time in the “real” world.
The U.S. should focus its efforts on Hamas, not hummus–the former being terrorist, the latter being a harmless late-night snack.
This is awesome news. Sabra hummus is super expensive – maybe this stupid boycott will push the price down.
You’ve got to be kidding, right? Demanding for a hummus boycott is not going to lower its cost. That never achieves anything.
UPDATE from Princeton:
The referendum will not be on the ballot this week. Postponed for now…Developments to follow soon.
http://www.universitypressclub.com/archive/2010/11/t-the-balance/
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/11/22/26987/
I think the effectiveness of boycotts is debatable, but I would salute the Princeton students if they did decide to boycott Israeli goods. Every little action helps.
Gabriella, when you say the students should really be putting pressure on Hamas, I think you are misinformed. For one thing, it’s much more important and moral for Americans to be criticizing the US and US support of Israel, since that’s something they as people who live under and who can control the policies of the American government can have an affect on. What can Americans do about Hamas? Nothing; it’s out of our control entirely. Whatever Hamas does is only the responsibility of the people who are governed by them. Also, realize that Hamas officials have continually stated that Israel’s existence is a reality, just that Israel should exist on its pre-1967 borders and remove its occupying troops from all occupied territories.
Oh please! Hamas admitting that Israel exists? You’ve got to be kidding me…It is a terrorist organization that wants Israel wiped off the map.
Me, misinformed? Try telling that to someone who has had family killed by Hamas. Oh wait…that would be me! Yes, a distant relative of mine was killed in a Tel Aviv nightclub suicide bomb attack by a Hamas operative in June 2001. So please don’t tell me that Hamas is harmless. Thanks!
http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/65/currentpage/22/Default.aspx
But alas, Israel is a human rights violator in your eyes, right? Shame…because Palestinians are the ones who are inflicting violence to those that don’t see eye-to-eye with them.
Read here and get enlightened:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226636/what-hamas-wants/clifford-d-may
And read this on why the PA/PLO isn’t as poor and nice as they make themselves to be.
From Hilary Clinton: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=92&doc_id=101; From Senator Brownback: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=92&doc_id=100
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=623
You must agree with the notion of a Second Holocaust too while you’re at it? I saw people like you surface last year when I hosted David Horowitz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE
Wow, that’s a lot for you to absorb! Get your facts straight before you accuse me of being misinformed.
Sabra removes support for Israeli troops on their website…
http://www.phillybds.org/?p=597&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
And stupidity is contagious at DePaul University.
http://smpalestine.com/2010/11/22/update-on-depauls-divestment-from-sabra-products-official-statement/
See a useful guide for boycotting Zionists …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcHwyW9xOyI
wow that is sad naming a delicacy food by the name of a place where israeli soldiers were proud to kill innocent women and children, really pathetic and sick culture
May a 67 year old make a comment about this non-story?
Just because an Israeli family offers support to their service men and women with food packages from their food products company, simply doesn’t meet the criteria of labeling them and the co-owner (Pepsico) as groups that support terrorists.
Should we in the United States boycott American companies that donate snacks to the commissaries in Iraq or any other area of the world where we question the validity of having our service men and women serving there? What a silly boycott that would be.
There are many more appropriate venues to take a stand with a peaceful protest, such as embassies, the United Nations or at elected representatives offices, That would involve some astute thinking processes and some effort on your part to leave your safe, cossetted world. Show me that you up to the task of organizing to protest in ways that will have a real meaningful impact on the political situation that exist in the Middle East.
Palestinians should just stick to supporting hamas as they have continuously done. Princeton University would do well not to bend to these terrorists’ demands unless they want their financial support from Jewish sources to dry up drier than a prune…and that’s a realistic and conservative prediction of what would happen….you may call it blackmail…but it’s life.
the lesbiantrics performed on private property — assualting the general public who have the right to shop in peace — completely undermines the message. and the message, based on outright lies and false memes, is comical in it’s inaccuracy and pathetically sad in light of fish-loving women who would be ‘honor’ killed for their love of mammalian seafood in the islamic world.
there is no better hummus than sabra. buying some tonight on the way home in support of israel!
LOL are they kidding ? Have you seen the video
I havent laughed this hard in awhile .
Wait untill they get a dose of the real world
gabby
Try telling that to someone who has had family killed by Hamas. Oh wait…that would be me! Yes, a distant relative of mine was killed in a Tel Aviv nightclub suicide bomb attack by a Hamas operative in June 2001. So please don’t tell me that Hamas is harmless. Thanks!
WHO F@!#$^* CARES!
Leave a Comment