Over the centuries, there has been tensions and conflicts in the Middle East countries over territorial issues and other politically instigated aspects. However, no one predicted that tensions in the middle east would be heightened by through a cuisine or a clash of who owns the hummus. Many are times when the world had been subjected to debate over the political issues between Israel and Lebanon, but least was expected to boil down to issues of national heritage. Therefore, this paper will explore the politics behind hummus, its origin, why it has escalated and what national leaders are doing to ensure it does not become a reason for armed conflict.
Hummus is a dish which is made with cooked and mashed beans or chicken peas or a Levantine dip which is seasoned with olive oil, Tahini, salt, garlic and lemon juice. Its basic ingredients include sesame, chickpeas, olive oil, garlic and lemon (Wallace, Murray and Zelman 766).
It is one of the most popular middle eastern cuisine and around the world and can also be found in food stores in America and other parts of Europe. The history of hummus can be traced back to the 13th century in Cairo where the recipes have been written in cookbooks. Hummus is common course meal in Israel, and it is part of everyday meals. It has been included in the Mizrahi Jewish Cuisine which has made it popular and the fact that Hummus contains ingredients which according to Jewish dietary laws, can be mixed with both dairy and meat meals (Wallace, Murray and Zelman 766). It is most popular among the Jewish Israelis and Israel Arabs something which has resulted in cultural clash over the ownership of the dish between the two factions. Though it is not a traditional Jewish meal, it has gained popularity due to the alleged hummus wars and has become a common feature in Israel owned restaurants all over the country and has then been regarded as a national meal.
It is from this context that hummus became political, primarily because national culture always plays a significant role in the political awakening and liberalization of a certain groups of people. Scholars such as Frans Fanon had emphasized that people should look into there cultural heritage so that they can mobilize resource for a national cause (Ranta 33). During the times of imperialism, locals usually used culture as a course for national identity, liberalization and political stand where it would lead to the creation of nation states. Therefore, culture became a national tool which can be used for national struggle for self-identity and social pride. After the establishment of the nations states, they developed national consciousness, identify and culture which became part of the statehood (Ranta 34). Of these categories of culture was that culinary knowledge became part of the national culture which was integral in its development and prosperity. Many nations began to take pride in the cuisines which they produced and popularized them as part of the uniting aspect of the nation.
There was development in national kitchens where it led to the establishment of national cuisines which were unique, and would then create a distinction between neighboring states. Each state developed a popular food which they identified with and became a daily staple (Ranta 38). In this case, hummus has become more than a meal, and it has been laced with cultural significance where its history has been largely controversial. The dispute over the ownership of hummus as part of national heritage has been incorporated into the overall framework of the Palestine and Israel clashes of national identity. As far as the Israel Arab neighbors are concerned, the adoption of hummus as an Israel national cuisine has been interpreted as imperialism (Diner 882). However, for all the conflict which has been in the region, hummus conflicts, or hummus wars has been relatively harmless and has not escalated to an armed conflict.
The aspect has fueled the hummus controversy that it has had many nations claiming its ownership. Several other nations which have claimed traditional ownership of the cuisine are Jordan, Greece, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria (Hirsch 617). This is in addition to Israel, which has already taken steps to make it a national meal, and her long nemesis Palestine, who also claims it is part of their culture. It is in this context that each of them makes hummus using different ingredients and therefore given rise of debate over the original ingredients and recipes of the cuisine. Therefore, with many nations claiming ownership, its historical origin has been hard to trace and has been subject to debate over time. Hummus is loosely translated to chickpeas in Arabic but the infusion of garlic into the cuisine, credit can be drawn by any of the nation (Hirsch 619). This is because chickpeas-based meals had been cooked in the Middle East for thousands of years.
The hummus politics began to take shape in 2008 when Lebanon initiated a legal action which was intended to claim the ownership of the hummus as a national cuisine. The Association of Lebanese Industrialists had initiated procedures which would have seen hummus recognized in the Middle East and a Lebanese national dish (Avieli 19). In this case, they wanted hummus to be registered as Lebanese national dish. To their counterparts in Israel, this was viewed as a ridiculous move which was likened to the notion of attempting to nationalize bread. However, Lebanon attempted to justify their cause by taking a reference to Greece which had been granted nationalization of cheese. In 2002, the feta cheese had been registered as a trademark of the Greece country, and in this case, Lebanon argued that they deserved justice. This can be understood in the economic sense where hummus is rated to have a global worth of around $1 billion (Avieli 20). When Lebanon was attempting to register hummus to the European Union, it wanted any other nation banned from using hummus in their products, and that hummus has a designative origin country. However, the European Union declined in registering hummus as Lebanese identity and observed that it is a dish which is food for the entire middle east region (Avieli 27).
However, what is primarily culinary issues has taken into a political stance making it hard to settle. It has been marred by political tensions and has then resulted in being inherently biased when considering if it should be nationalized by any of the countries or remain a shared diet among the middle east countries. Purists hold the idea that Lebanon is the true heir of pastes made of chickpea (Hirsch 619). In response, the Israelis held the opinion that no nation can claim to have rights to a traditional heritage without having historical proof and justification. Israel held the notion that Lebanon was a country which was around six decades old and it draws citizenship from all part of the world. There it would lack to have a traditionally unifying food which can be claimed and identified by all its citizens (Hirsch 620).
The Lebanese draw their claim because Israel is also a reintegrated country which was settled in their region in the early 20th century. Despite the fact that hummus united the Arab nations such as Egypt and Palestine, it does not have the same effects on the Israel and Palestine. This is because, in the early years of the state, Israel did not eat local foods and therefore depended on imported foods due to foreign aid. They had stuck to their original habits dedicated by Jewish dietary laws (Hirsch 337). It is in this aspect that it took a political stand with the belief that if one ate Palestine food, he or she recognized that they exist or those other people on the region who have other traditional foods. In the 1950s, the Israeli army began to serve hummus to eating halls, and in time, every person began to associate hummus as a staple dish. The next generation who grew up with hummus as everyday meal recognized it as part of the national cuisine, and it became hip. Hummus has become appropriated as a dish for the new sabra, which is a term used to refer to Jews who have been born Israel territory (Hirsch 338). It is in this context that Lebanon claimed that Israel had no justification in seeking to have hummus as a national dish.
It was in 2010 when Lebanon and Israel took the Levantine dip war into another level, and it escalated into an absurd dimension. In this case, the two countries decided to settle the dispute in a more old-fashioned way, where they competed on who would make the biggest hummus dish. In January 2010, Israel made a hummus dish of 9000 pounds to set a new world record in an Israel-Arab village of Abu Gosh (Avieli 24). This made the Israel government with the 4-tone dish enter into the Guinness book of records. It was then that Lebanon decided to retaliate. In an attempt to reclaim their national pride, the Lebanese made a ten-tone hummus dish which was double the size made by the Israeli. The results were confirmed by the Guinness world book of records as being the biggest hummus dish to be ever made. In this context, the Lebanese snatched the record which had been held by the Israeli for a few months (Avieli 24). With such a measure, the hummus had become a symbol of the tensions which had been in the middle east for several years.
It is this competition of who would make the largest hummus which culminated in the whole issue being regarded as the hummus wars. This is because as Lebanon made a huge vat of hummus, it was attempting to legitimize hummus as a Lebanon cuisine and inform the world that the dish is original to the nation. In 2009, the Lebanon minister of Tourism Fadi Abboud, while in France encountered people who claimed that hummus is an Israeli dish after Israel had won the Guinness record for having the world’s biggest hummus dish (Avieli 27). Therefore, a response from Lebanon was in order and called for a national aspect which would popularize the hummus as traditional to the Lebanese. At the unveiling ceremony, Abboud had insisted that the intention was to make the world know that hummus is a Lebanese culture and part of national identity (Avieli 27). In this aspect attempting to legitimize hummus as Lebanese based on the name of hummus which is Arabic and therefore could not be traditional to Israel.
There is a sense in which pressure groups have used hummus as a means towards achieving of social or economical goals either in Israel or Palestine. In September 2016, Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has a campaign which was aimed at removing Sabra hummus from the shelves (Vassar BDS Coalition). The Sabra hummus was a multinational company which was owned by the Strauss Group and was supporting Israel armed forces of the Golani brigade. After it had been formed, the Golani Brigade had been accused of human rights violations of assaults, arbitrary murders, eviction and arrest of children in Hebron Palestine. In this context, the existence of the Golani brigade was seen as a violation of the international law and therefore, it was illegal as per the united nations (Vassar BDS Coalition). In this context, the student used hummus as a way of advocating for upholding of human rights and respect to constitutional rights.
Many of the those who took part in hummus boycott supplied homemade hummus and had slogans which indicated “save our hummus” in the streets and the social media. They believed that purchasing hummus from an international company was being in agreement with the colonization of Palestine. Therefore, boycotting the product would redeem the state of Palestine from foreign military domination and in foodstuff. Palestine has then termed it as the same as South African apartheid, and therefore there was the feeling that the imposition of the Israeli culture, which was a wider scheme of the Israeli nation, legitimizing itself to the world (Vassar BDS Coalition).
To conclude, it can be assumed that hummus is a dish which has served as a unifying factor among the Arab nations. Having the understanding that Israel takes most of the altercations political, hummus wars have been mostly peaceful. Between Lebanon and Israel, the contest on the ownership of hummus has taken a humorous aspect and despite the military incursions over the past, this is one conflict which has yet to have a rocket fired across the border to a neighboring country. Between Israel and Palestine, hummus has become a tool to be used by pressure groups, using a non-violent means to an end alleged human rights violations in Hebron.
Works cited
Avieli, N. "The Hummus Wars Revisited: Israeli-Arab Food Politics And Gastromediation." Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies 16.3 (2016): 19-30. Web.
Diner, Hasia R. "Beyond Hummus And Falafel: Social And Political Aspects Of Palestinian Food In Israel." Ethnic and Racial Studies 37.5 (2013): 882-884. Web.
Hirsch, Dafna. "“Hummus Is Best When It Is Fresh And Made By Arabs”: The Gourmetization Of Hummus In Israel And The Return Of The Repressed Arab." American Ethnologist 38.4 (2011): 617-630. Web.
Hirsch, Dafna. "Hummus Masculinity In Israel." Food, Culture & Society 19.2 (2016): 337-359. Web.
Ranta, Ronald. "Food And Nationalism." World Policy Journal 32.3 (2015): 33-40. Web.
Vassar BDS Coalition. "HUMMUS IS POLITICAL – CHOOSE A SIDE: THE SABRA BOYCOTT, FALSE PROMISES, AND THE ROAD AHEAD." Vassar BDS Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (2016): n. Pag. Print.
Wallace, Taylor, Robert Murray, and Kathleen Zelman. "The Nutritional Value And Health Benefits Of Chickpeas And Hummus." Nutrients 8.12 (2016): 766. Web.
Comments