Lahav Shani, future chief conductor of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, stands on stage after receiving the Golden Medal of Honor from the City of Munich. Photo: Sven Hoppe/dpa via Reuters Connect

A group of musicians launched a petition on Wednesday night urging an upcoming international music festival in Ghent, Belgium, to reconsider canceling a concert by the Munich Philharmonic, which was called off because its future chief conductor, Lahav Shani, is Israeli and also the music director of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.

The Munich Philharmonic was scheduled to perform on Sept. 18 at the Flanders Festival Ghen with Shani as conductor. Shani will take over as conductor of the Munich Philharmonic for the 2026/27 season. Organizers of the festival, taking place in the Flemish region of Belgium, said on Wednesday they made the decision to cancel the concert “on the basis of our deepest conviction that music should be a source of connection and reconciliation.”

They said in a released statement that the Tel Aviv-born director “has spoken out in favor of peace and reconciliation several times in the past, but in the light of his role as the chief conductor of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, we are unable to provide sufficient clarity about his attitude to the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv.”

“In line with the call from the Minister of Culture, the city council of Ghent and the cultural sector in Ghent, we have chosen to refrain from collaboration with partners who have not distanced themselves unequivocally from that regime,” organizers added. “Given the inhumanity of the current situation, which is also leading to emotional reactions in our own society, we believe it is undesirable to allow this concert to go ahead. We have chosen to maintain the serenity of our festival and safeguard the concert experience for our visitors and musicians.”

Tickets purchased for the concert will be fully reimbursed and ticketholders are “currently being contacted personally,” organizers said. They additionally claimed that the festival “aspires to be a place where artists, audiences, and staff can experience music in a context of respect and safety” and “remains committed to the universal power of music.”

On Wednesday night, a group of musicians, led by the Iranian-American harpsichordist Mahan Esfahani, started a petition that urges the Ghent Festival of Flanders to immediately reverse its “morally bankrupt decision” to cancel the concert with Shani and to uphold “the values of dialogue and openness.” More than 3,000 people have signed the petition, whose co-authors include British pianist Danny Driver, American conductor and violinist Joshua Weilerstein, and Belarusian musician Kyril Zlotnikov.

“The Ghent Festival has chosen to punish an artist on the basis of his nationality alone,” the musicians wrote in their petition. “What is more insidious is the implication that any artist, Israeli or otherwise, will only be accepted if they express unequivocally the ‘correct’ opinions.”

“This decision will do nothing to save a single Palestinian life, bring a hostage home, or to make any improvement to the unbearable civilian suffering currently taking place in this conflict,” they added, referring to the war in Gaza. “It will, however, resonate loudly with those who equate an artist’s nationality with an excuse to exclude them from the cultural sphere.”

In a joint statement, the Munich Philharmonic and city of Munich said they were “appalled” by the cancellation of the concert. They accused Flanders Festival Ghen organizers of caving to “pressure from activist groups and Belgian politics,” and defended Shani.

“Lahav Shani is stepping up for understanding, humanism and dialogue in all his work as a musician and a human being,” they said. “We strongly refuse to bring Israeli artists under general suspicion and collectively punish them. Banning people from the stage, concert hall, or other public places because of their origin or religious affiliation is an attack on essential European and democratic values.”

Munich Philharmonic Director Florian Wiegand said he was “stunned” that the festival “is making such an unimaginable decision,” while Marek Wiechers, head of cultural affairs in the city of Munich, described Shani as someone who “stands for humanity, reconciliation, and understanding like no other, with his integrative work and attitude.”

Munich Mayor Dieter Reiter called the decision “utterly incomprehensible” and declared: “The City of Munich, and I personally, stand firmly with the Munich Philharmonic and with their future chief conductor, Lahav Shani.”

The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra said it “firmly condemns the decision” and expressed “profound regret” over the move.

“In the world of music and art, there is simply no place for withdrawing an invitation based on one’s place of origin,” the orchestra said. “We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Munich Philharmonic for their steadfast support of Lahav Shani, and we send Lahav a warm embrace of solidarity and encouragement.”

Israel’s Ambassador to Belgium Idit Rosenzweig-Abu described the decision as “antisemitic,” and accused festival organizers of “racism” and “discriminating a person based solely on his origin.” Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot told the local radio station RTBF he thinks the cancellation is “excessive.”

“We must not confuse the Jewish community and Israelis with Netanyahu’s policies,” he added, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

German Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer criticized the move as a “disgrace for Europe” and said in a statement that “under the guise of supposed criticism of Israel, a cultural boycott is being carried out here.”

The Flanders Festival Ghen runs from Sept. 12- Oct. 2. The event attracts more than 50,000 visitors and showcases classical music, as well as world music and jazz, according to its website. The festival hosts at least 180 concerts and more than 1,500 international artists. Flanders Festival Ghent is a member of the Federation of Flanders Music Festivals (FMiV) and the European Festivals Association (EFA).

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara

There was a time, not long ago, when disagreement was something that Americans believed in. Not just tolerated, not just endured, but believed in. Debate was seen as the crucible of truth. A clash of ideas, a testing of convictions, a sign of a free people confident enough to confront each other with words. That time is receding fast. What is rising in its place is something far more dangerous.

Three events. Three different places. Three separate incidents of death.

On a university stage in Utah, Charlie Kirk is shot in the neck while speaking. On the steps of a Jewish museum in Washington, DC, two young diplomats are gunned down after a reception. On a pedestrian mall in Boulder, Colorado, a group of elderly Jews are attacked with fire while marching for hostages. They come from different places, but they belong to the same pattern: violence aimed not only at people but also at the ideas they represent. Together, they form a portrait of a society fraying at its edges, where ideological rage no longer waits for permission to act.

As of this writing, no suspect has yet been identified in Kirk’s killing, and no motive has been confirmed. But what cannot be denied is that a political figure was assassinated mid-conversation, on an American campus, in front of an audience, most likely for expressing mainstream views. This is not simply a personal loss or a moment of partisan outrage. It marks a rupture in the civic fabric — a killing carried out in the middle of a public forum, aimed not just at a man but at the act of speaking itself. It challenges the very assumption that we are still living in a society where speech, even if heated, is protected by something more than law, but by convention, by principle, by shared civic belief.

In Washington, the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, reportedly shouted “Free Palestine” as he opened fire on a young Israeli couple walking home from a diplomatic event. In Boulder, suspect Mohamed Soliman allegedly hurled homemade Molotov cocktails at Jewish activists, setting them alight while yelling the same phrase. These slogans are ideological claims made through violence and are attempts not to argue but to silence.

The American left and right are bitterly divided over many things. But this is not about left or right. It is about something deeper: whether one believes that speech is violence, or whether one still believes that speech is how violence is restrained; whether one thinks disagreement is dangerous, or essential; whether one can look at a speaker on stage and say: “I oppose everything he stands for, but he must be allowed to speak.” Like many of my contemporaries and friends who speak publicly on campuses, TV screens, and even in town squares, who write internationally on political and social issues, and who debate daily with those we disagree with, I know the importance of listening to others and protecting their safety even when their views and ideas are at odds with mine.

Charlie Kirk was many things: bold, intelligent, ideological. He was also a man who invited his opponents to challenge him, live, unfiltered, in public. He believed in the premise that truth emerges when ideas are contested openly. That belief cost him his life, and his murder cost us all something of our human civility.

When we are told that certain views are so harmful they cannot be spoken, that some identities are so vulnerable they cannot be criticized, that public speech must be constrained in order to protect public “safety,” we are being fed a logic that inverts liberty. And when taken to its limit, as it was on that stage in Utah, it replaces conversation with bloodshed and fear.

Jews, perhaps more than anyone, understand this pattern. It is one we have seen too many times before. The weaponization of ideology, the demonization of speech, the targeting of people for their beliefs. When Jewish people are firebombed in broad daylight in an American city for showing solidarity with those brutally kidnapped and tortured in captivity, something vital has already broken. When diplomats are murdered on American soil for the simple fact of being Israeli, that line is not being tested. It has already been crossed.

And when a public figure is murdered — possibly for his ideas, his religion, his support of Israel, or simply his refusal to remain silent — the connections become harder to ignore. The principle is the same: the belief that violence is a legitimate answer to speech, that murder is a form of rebuttal. This mindset is not formed in a vacuum. When university students chant for “intifada” and endorse “resistance by any means,” they help cultivate a culture in which violent responses to speech are seen as justifiable. The issues may differ, but the logic is the same: disagreement becomes a pretext for force.

This is not only a fight for Jews. But Jews have been among the first to suffer, and they know too well the pain that Charlie Kirk’s wife, children, fans, and followers are feeling. All decent people feel that pain now, not because they knew him, but because they see the absurdity of killing a man dedicated to the idea of open debate, free thinking, and listening to each other’s opinions.

The rest of us cannot respond with fear of speaking up. That is how terror and violence win. Charlie’s voice may have been silenced, but his message and his ethos must not be killed as well. While we cannot be parents to Charlie’s children, nor his wife’s partner and support, we can and must redouble our dedication to debate, discussion, and civility, to become the manifestation of his belief in reason, analysis, and discussion. Let us insist that America remains a place where people may speak, protest, argue, offend, and yes, even be wrong, without fearing that the price will be death.

Jonathan Sacerdoti, a writer and broadcaster, is now a contributor to The Algemeiner.

Sen. James Lankford speaks during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press

Lawmakers gathered Tuesday at an event hosted by the American Jewish Committee’s Center for a New Middle East to mark the fifth anniversary of the Abraham Accords, the historic series of normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states.

Speakers uniformly praised the accords as a bright spot in a region long defined by conflict, pointing to increased trade, cultural exchange, and security cooperation as proof of their durability. The gathering also underscored bipartisan support in Washington for the agreements, which were signed in 2020 by Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco and Sudan. The speakers also emphasized the need to expand the Abraham Accords.

Among the participants were Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV). 

But amid the celebration, many lawmakers struck a note of caution. Several lawmakers referenced the ongoing war in Gaza and the rising tensions across the Middle East, warning that instability threatens to overshadow the progress made in the past five years. Some lawmakers also cautioned that Israel’s recent strike against Hamas leaders in Qatar might have stymied ceasefire efforts and set back the Jewish state’s 

Lankford, Co-Chair of the Senate Abraham Accords Caucus, underscored the importance of bipartisan support for both Israel and the Abraham Accords, saying that the landmark series of normalization agreements are “not called Trump’s accords It’s called the Abraham Accords.”

During President Donald Trump’s first administration from 2017-2021, the White House helped broker the Abraham Accords, a series of historic normalization agreements between Israel and several countries in the Arab world. These agreements are credited with helping to stabilize the relationship between Israel and many of its neighbors. 

Since returning to the White House, President Trump has vowed to expand on the Abraham Accords, arguing that bolstering the normalization agreements 

Lankford added that he notices a difference in how countries involved in the Abraham Accords, such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco, have handled the ongoing war in Gaza, noting that these nations have curtailed extremist behavior within their own populations. 

Ernst, Co-Chair of the Senate Abraham Accords Caucus, indicated that she is hopeful that the accords will help strengthen Israel’s relations with its Arab neighbors. She also lamented Israel’s recent strike in Qatar, noting Qatar’s status as an American ally and its integral role in mediating ceasefire negotiations. 

She also added that Saudi Arabia was very close to joining the Abraham Accords until the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel. Despite the setback, the lawmaker believes that Saudi Arabia remains open to normalizing relations in Israel after the war in Gaza concludes.