Amsterdam restaurant removes controversial mocktail from menu
Restaurant 95 says it received dozens of death threats over the name of a drink.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Restaurant 95 in Amsterdam has removed a mocktail from its menu after reportedly receiving dozens of death threats. The available reporting relies mainly on the restaurant’s statement; no public police report has been found.
The mocktail is called From the river to the sea. Restaurant 95 on the Amstelveenseweg said the drink’s name led to dozens of death threats this week. Fearing further intimidation, the venue removed the drink from its menu.
The name refers to a slogan that is interpreted differently in the debate over Israel and the Palestinian territories. Some people see the slogan as a call for a single Palestinian state in the area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea; others experience it as a threat to Israel’s continued existence or as antisemitic. Its meaning depends on the context in which the slogan is used.
The available public source does not state how many reports were made to the police, whether the threats were made online or directly, or whether anyone was detained as a suspect. This article therefore presents the numbers and the reasoning solely as the restaurant’s statement.
The venue is located at Amstelveenseweg 152 in Amsterdam and lists a menu and contact details on its own website. The website does not independently confirm the threats or the removal of the drink. Nor has any public decision by the municipality or a court been found concerning the name or the menu.
The event touches on two questions that regularly arise together in the Netherlands: where is the boundary between political expression and intimidation, and how do you protect a business from threats without banning every controversial expression in advance? Those questions can be asked separately from the political assessment of the slogan.
For now, the only point that can be established with sufficient certainty is that the restaurant removed the mocktail and says it was intimidated by threats. Without police information or a second independent source, the scale, origin and criminal nature of the messages cannot be established.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Restaurant 95 says it received threats following the naming of a mocktail.
- The venue says it therefore removed the drink from its menu.
- No public independent confirmation was found of the scale, origin or criminal nature of the messages.
Left
Arguments An entrepreneur should retain room for political and cultural expression, especially when a slogan has multiple meanings. Threats against a business or its staff are unacceptable and can cause minorities and sympathisers to withdraw from speaking out through fear.
Values Emphasis on protecting minorities, freedom of expression and combating intimidation.
Consequences More attention to prosecuting threats and restraint in banning controversial expressions.
Centre
Arguments A restaurant may decide for itself which name appears on its menu, but threats must be investigated separately. The government should not judge the slogan based on online outrage, but gather facts and ensure the safety of staff and visitors.
Values Emphasis on the rule of law, proportionality and factual investigation.
Consequences Investigation of concrete reports, without automatic censorship or automatic exoneration of the people making the threats.
Right
Arguments A business does not have to use a politically charged message as a product name if it predictably causes social tension. That does not justify threats, but entrepreneurs may choose calm, customer safety and a clear separation between hospitality and activism.
Values Emphasis on order, entrepreneurs’ responsibility and protecting customers and staff.
Consequences Faster adjustments to communications and menus, potentially at the expense of visible political expression in public spaces.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The text explicitly attributes the core claims to the restaurant and makes clear that independent confirmation is lacking. The meaning of the slogan is presented as context rather than as a definitive judgement.
- confirmed Restaurant 95 removed a mocktail called From the river to the sea from its menu. — This is reported by the regional source; the venue’s own website confirms the location and existence of the business, but not the removal. source
- uncertain The restaurant says it received dozens of death threats. — The claim comes from a single report quoting the venue; independent police confirmation is lacking. source
- confirmed The venue is located at Amstelveenseweg 152 in Amsterdam. — The address appears on Restaurant 95’s website. source
Editor's note
One public regional news source was found reporting the restaurant’s statement, along with the venue’s own website. A police report, municipal confirmation or second independent source concerning the threats was lacking.Sources
- Restaurant 95 op Amstelveenseweg krijgt doodsbedreigingen om mocktail — In de regio Amsterdam
- Restaurant 95 — Restaurant 95
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „amsterdam restaurant 95”
- Trouw — „amsterdam restaurant 95”
- NRC — „amsterdam restaurant 95”