Uncategorized
Wikipedia’s ‘Supreme Court’ tackles alleged conspiracy to distort articles on Holocaust
(JTA) — When a pair of professors earlier this month published a paper accusing a group of Wikipedia editors from Poland of revising articles to distort the history of the Holocaust, their research went viral.
Most academic articles are seen by dozens or hundreds of people at best. This one, published in The Journal of Holocaust Research, hit more than 27,000 pageviews within weeks.
The paper’s reach was fueled by its analysis, unprecedented in the academic literature on Wikipedia, and its finding that a dedicated group has for some 15 years manipulated a source of information used by millions in ways that lay blame for the Holocaust on Jews and absolve Poland of almost any responsibility for its record of antisemitism.
The paper caught the eye of not just scholars and journalists but of the people in charge of resolving disputes over editing on crowd-sourced Wikipedia, the seventh-most popular website on the internet and one that is seen as the last bastion of shared truth in an ever-fracturing online environment.
Typically, disputes among Wikipedia editors are resolved through community consensus mechanisms, but occasionally those mechanisms fail and allegations are brought to Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, a panel of elected editors known as Wikipedia’s Supreme Court.
“Wikipedia is not exactly democratic but anarchistic in a way that actively discourages any sort of an authority coming to solve a dispute,” said Joe Roe, a veteran Wikipedia editor who served on the committee in 2019 and 2020. “The Arbitration Committee is a very limited exception.”
In this case, something especially unusual happened. The Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, decided to look into the allegations without receiving a formal request to do so. No one could recall the committee taking such a step in its nearly two decades of existence.
“A myopic decision here could result in untold numbers of people being fed a distorted view of Jewish/WWII history, which could have very real consequences given the recent amplification of violently antisemitic rhetoric by mainstream public figures,” wrote a user named SamX in a public post about the case. “ArbCom needs to get this right.”
The article that triggered the opening of the case was published under the title, “Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust.” It accused 11 current and former editors of intentional distortions to numerous articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. The paper referred to the editors by their usernames but also provided their real names if they had publicly identified themselves on Wikipedia message boards.
“Due to this group’s zealous handiwork, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland minimize Polish antisemitism, exaggerate the Poles’ role in saving Jews, insinuate that most Jews supported Communism and conspired with Communists to betray Poles, blame Jews for their own persecution, and inflate Jewish collaboration with the Nazis,” wrote co-authors Jan Grabowski, a historian at the University of Ottawa, and Shira Klein of the history department at Chapman University in Orange, California.
Normally, mistakes on Wikipedia, whether intentional or not, can be quickly fixed by experienced editors who deploy a set of rules regarding sourcing and style. But in this case, the alleged distortionists know Wikipedia’s mechanisms well enough to at least appear to follow the rules and are willing to spend time arguing with other editors who step in to intervene. It becomes harder to get to the truth because they work to discredit established historians and prop up fringe voices to create the semblance of a real-world debate over historical events, according to the article.
In one of the dozens of examples documented in the study, the alleged distortionists have tried to pass the self-published work of an antisemitic Polish writer named Ewa Kurek as a reliable source. Kurek has said that COVID-19 is a cover for an attempt by Jews to take over Europe and that Jews enjoyed life in Nazi ghettos. An editor named Volunteer Marek argued in a backstage conversation among editors that Kurek should be cited as any “mainstream scholar” would be. And another editor, working on an article about a 1941 massacre of Jews in Poland, added Kurek’s claim that minimized the number of Jewish victims and exonerated Polish perpetrators.
Jewish school children pose for a portrait in the 1930s in Wizna, near Jedwabne, Poland. New research revealed that members of the Polish community killed their Jewish neighbors on July 10, 1941 during World War ll despite previous claims that Nazi Germans were entirely responsible. Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski apologized for the massacre of hundreds of Jews by their neighbors during ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the murders. (Laski Diffusion/Getty Images)
One thing the research didn’t discuss is what motivates these editors to invest so much time and effort into distorting Wikipedia. Klein said the omission was deliberate.
“We’ve been very careful not to make any assumptions on what drives them or what their politics are,” Klein said. “Instead, we’ve tried to focus just on what they’ve done, which is in the written record. And as we say in the article, we don’t see any evidence of them being tied to a government or being in the service of anyone else.”
Klein’s disclaimer obliquely points to a larger challenge around the historical record of the Holocaust in Poland. A central tenet of the country’s ruling Law and Justice party is defending the image of ethnic Poles and imposing nationalist narratives on the past, especially the period of World War II. While history shows that many Poles participated in the persecution of Jews, Poland’s nationalist right insists on portraying Poles only as victims or heroes.
In 2018, the Polish government passed what’s known as the Polish Holocaust Law, which makes it illegal to slander the Polish nation or blame the country for Nazi crimes. In practice, the law has served to censor scholars and chill debate.
Grabowski, Klein’s co-author on the paper, has for years sparred with the nationalist right over Poland’s historical memory. He sued a Polish group that accused him of publishing lies about Polish history in 2018, and in 2021 was ordered by a Polish court to apologize for his research before an appeals court ultimately overturned the order.
Domestically, Poland’s ultranationalists have largely won the war over the public discourse, which has freed them to focus on the global scene, where English-language Wikipedia is regarded as a major battlefront.
In this atmosphere, even something as basic as the background of Yiddish novelist and Nobel prize laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer can become fodder for debate. For years, Singer was at the center of a fight between two editors over whether Singer was best described in the first line of his Wikipedia article as a Jewish or Polish author. The eventual compromise — “Polish-born Jewish American” — lasted for almost two years until Feb. 23 when someone again dropped the “Jewish.”
The Wikipedia editors now being accused of distorting articles to further nationalist narratives have rejected the allegations against them.
“I have not engaged in any ‘Holocaust distortion,’ on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I am not a ‘right-wing Polish nationalist,’” said Volunteer Marek in a public comment on a Wikipedia message board that was endorsed by at least one other alleged distortionist. “I am not part of some nefarious ‘Polish conspiracy’ on Wikipedia which seeks to manipulate content. All of these accusations are ridiculous and absurd. They are particularly disgusting and vile since they go against everything I believe in.”
In the debate about how to handle the case, dozens of arbitrators and ordinary Wikipedia editors — all volunteers — spoke of the situation on a Wikipedia message board as something close to an existential crisis for Wikipedia. Not only was the website accused of being used to spread antisemitic propaganda, but it was also alleged to be vulnerable to large-scale manipulation by a small group of bad-faith actors.
There is little confidence in the community that a solution is within reach. By its own rules, the committee isn’t supposed to decide on disputed information. It’s more of a disciplinary body that evaluates the behavior of Wikipedia editors and can ultimately decide whether to restrict their editing privileges or ban them outright.
But figuring out if the accused editors have indeed evaded safeguards and undermined Wikipedia’s integrity would seem to require that the arbitrators become experts on the history of the Holocaust in Poland.
The decision to take up the case serves to acknowledge that the committee failed to solve the problem when it last considered complaints about editing related to the Holocaust in Poland about two years ago. That was during Roe’s tenure and he says the committee was distracted by another dispute at the time.
“It can’t be escalated further than it already has in our mechanisms,” Roe said. “The best we can do is what’s currently happening now — just put it through those mechanisms again, and hope that something better will come out on the other side.”
In explaining why the committee must nevertheless take on the case, an arbitrator who goes by Wugapodes commented that the only other choice is to kick the can down the road.
“This will not be an easy issue to resolve, but the committee was not convened to solve easy issues,” Wugapodes wrote, pointing out that the timing is right given the attention and involvement of outside experts and editors. “We can leverage these resources now or wait for this decade-long problem to get still worse.”
By a vote of nine to one on Feb. 13, the committee decided to open the case. The proceedings, which start with an evidence-gathering phase, are expected to last up to six weeks, after which they can decide to ban and restrict offending editors.
Beyond that, an unorthodox last resort option is also available. Wikipedia’s so-called Supreme Court could ask for help from an even higher authority: the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit that owns the encyclopedia. The foundation intervened in 2021 in what some see as a similar scenario of a far-right takeover on the Croatian-language Wikipedia, hiring an outside expert to disentangle the web of obfuscation and banning a set of editors.
Roe said that his tenure on the committee in 2019 and 2020, which featured related complaints about the editing of articles on the Holocaust in Poland, helped lead him to believe that Wikipedia should embrace change, at least when it comes to controversial political topics.
“I would like to see these difficult and politically charged content problems be referred to a new body made up of external experts, and that we don’t insist on doing everything internally among the community volunteers,” Roe said.
But he acknowledged that such a scenario is unlikely to result from the Poland dispute.
“It’s not a popular view and it kind of goes against the general idea of Wikipedia,” he said.
—
The post Wikipedia’s ‘Supreme Court’ tackles alleged conspiracy to distort articles on Holocaust appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
He was Zohran Mamdani’s Jewish wingman. What’s next for Brad Lander?
(JTA) — When Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani were jointly honored at a left-wing Jewish event in September, the two politicians’ alliance was at the center of the evening.
Lander, who had cross-endorsed Mamdani in the Democratic primary months earlier, said he was “proud to be a Jew for Zohran” during his speech at the Mazals gala, hosted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. The pair hugged onstage as comedian Ilana Glazer introduced them. The mood was celebratory, albeit sprinkled with cautious reminders that there was still a general election to win.
Nearly two months later, Mamdani fulfilled expectations with an election win. Lander would attend his election night rally, celebrating Andrew Cuomo’s loss with a T-shirt that read “Good f—ing riddance.”
But his future in the city’s new order was uncertain. After Lander reportedly angled for a top position in Mamdani’s City Hall, Mamdani filled out his leadership team with others, leaving Lander in the cold when his tenure as comptroller ends next month. Now, he appears to be considering a run for Congress in his district, setting up a potential rare instance of a Jewish progressive challenging a Jewish centrist.
“I won’t be making any news tonight,” Lander warned with a smile at an event Wednesday night for Standing Together, an Israel-Palestinian peace-building organization. Supporters greeted him after the event, many saying they’d be happy to canvass and vote for him should he run for Congress.
“There are many ways to serve, and I will have more to say about the ones that I am looking forward to in the future,” Lander said in an interview after the event.
Lander told Crain’s New York Business last week that he is “very seriously considering” challenging Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th Congressional District in next year’s midterm Democratic primary. A poll taken last month suggests that he would stand a strong chance.
Israel would likely weigh heavily in a Lander-Goldman matchup. Lander is a self-described liberal Zionist whose criticism of Israel has intensified since his alliance with Mamdani, a longtime anti-Zionist. Goldman is a moderate who did not endorse in the general election for mayor, saying he was “very concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from Zohran Mamdani,” and that he wanted to see Mamdani condemn “violence in the name of anti-Israel, anti-Zionism.”
The New York Times reported on Friday that Mamdani had urged Lander to challenge Goldman — in the same conversation where he told Lander he wouldn’t be hiring him at City Hall.
The 10th Congressional District covers Lower Manhattan, as well as parts of western and central Brooklyn, where Lander was a three-term City Council member. While Lower Manhattan was more split in the general election, most of the district’s Brooklyn neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for Mamdani. The district also includes part of Borough Park, a neighborhood with a large Orthodox Jewish population that strongly supported the centrist mayoral candidate, Andrew Cuomo.
There has been an appetite in progressive circles for Goldman to be replaced in 2026 by a candidate more aligned with their politics. “Dump Dan” flyers were handed out to people lining up for Wednesday’s event with Lander, held in a Brooklyn Heights church that falls within the district.
“I would love to see Brad in Congress,” said Arlene Geiger, founder and coordinator of the Upper West Side Action Group, which endorsed Lander in the Democratic mayoral primary.
“I think he’s progressive and Dan Goldman is very tied to AIPAC,” she continued, referring to the Israel lobby that is seen as increasingly toxic by Democrats. “I don’t like his position on the Middle East at all. He’s more of a centrist.”
Geiger’s group is based outside the district, but she said in an interview that it “would be happy to be working” on Lander’s campaign to challenge Goldman.
A September poll by Data for Progress surveyed voters in the 10th congressional district; in a two-man race between Goldman and Lander, the poll found that Lander would win 52-33.
But Democratic strategist Trip Yang advised pumping the brakes, pointing out that polls taken so far in advance of an election “don’t matter as much” and that incumbents bring an advantage. Plus, he noted, City Council member Alexa Aviles, who’s reported to have interest in the seat, could pose an obstacle for Lander.
“In a lot of ways, Alexa Aviles has a higher ceiling as a congressional candidate than Brad Lander,” Yang said, pointing out that 20% of the district is Latino, and that she would likely have the Democratic Socialists of America’s endorsement, giving her more of “the Zohran imprint.”
At first, the DSA privately committed not to endorse any of Lander’s hypothetical opponents, but — after Lander held out while awaiting a potential job under Mamdani — has since voted to back Aviles, a longtime member, the New York Times reported on Friday, adding that multiple sources said Mamdani has said he would back Lander. Maneuvering is reportedly underway within the left-wing group, which counts the mayor-elect as its most prominent member, to avert the progressive split that delivered the seat for Goldman in 2022.
While already a known quantity as the city’s top financial officer, Lander gained “the Zohran imprint” himself by closely associating with the mayoral frontrunner since June. Lander also gained recognition over his recent protests against ICE, for which he was arrested by federal agents at an immigration court.
After finishing third in the ranked-choice primary, Lander actively stumped for Mamdani throughout the general election campaign to help defeat Cuomo a second time.
“I was proud to do that — I have been proud all the way through the general election campaign to campaign with him, side by side,” Lander said this week. He added that he would “continue to work in close partnership” with Mamdani to achieve his campaign goals.
Throughout the election, Lander worked to ease concerns from many Jewish New Yorkers about Mamdani’s position on Israel, including his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Lander sought to reinforce Mamdani’s commitment to the safety of Jewish New Yorkers, and showcased the democratic socialist’s engagement with Jewish communities.
He brought Mamdani to the progressive synagogue Kolot Chayeinu, where Lander is a member, for Rosh Hashanah services, and accompanied Mamdani for Kol Nidre services at another progressive congregation.
He spoke highly of Mamdani at the Mazals. “Having an immigrant Muslim mayor with a genuinely inclusive vision — and that brilliant smile — it offers us a chance for us to strengthen what is, for so many of us, so deeply Jewish about this city,” Lander said. “And that’s why I’m proud to be a Jew for Zohran.”
Critics said Lander’s efforts merely “kosherized” antisemitism at a time when fierce reaction to the war in Gaza led to Jews feeling unsafe and isolated, and anti-Jewish attacks rose.
“Lander is part of a larger story of the collapse of New York’s Jewish-political establishment, which has forced Jews to seek representation in non-Jewish politicians who inevitably get told to mind their business when they criticize anti-Semitism,” the conservative pundit Seth Mandel wrote in Commentary in June. “Lander has played an important role in this collapse by being a sherpa of sorts for rising Jew-baiters.”
And as the election wore on, Lander seemingly moved closer toward Mamdani’s positions; he began using the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s military campaign in Gaza — a term he had previously refrained from using — during a Yom Kippur service in October.
Lander credited that shift in terminology to conversations he had with his daughter, who had read Raphael Lemkin — the Holocaust survivor who coined the term “genocide” — in a college class.
“She had read a lot of Lemkin and she brought it forward to me, and pushed me pretty hard,” he said. “And we had a lot of conversation, debate back and forth — we’re not so different from many other families full of liberal Zionist parents and further left kids.”
He added, “You can continue to be a liberal Zionist who believes in the vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and be honest about what Israel has been doing to Palestinians in Gaza, and the West Bank as well.”
In his efforts to warm Jewish voters to the idea of voting for Mamdani, Lander spoke to groups like the Upper West Side Action Group — which had endorsed him in the primary — and took questions about Mamdani from an audience that was mostly Jewish.
Geiger, the group’s coordinator, said Lander’s endorsement helped grow Mamdani’s support among their voters who were unsure because of the candidate’s stance on Israel, as well as the 34-year-old Assembly member’s lack of executive experience.
“There were those, I think, who were swayed by Brad’s endorsement because they like Brad, and knew him,” said Geiger, who is Jewish.
Yang said he believed that Lander’s advocacy boosted Mamdani’s appeal. “I don’t know if Zohran has this big of a winning margin without Brad Lander,” he said. “You have to give Brad credit for this.”
The post He was Zohran Mamdani’s Jewish wingman. What’s next for Brad Lander? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Is dining-hall matzah ‘DEI’? The answer isn’t clear to UVA’s pushed-out ex-president.
(JTA) — Months after being forced out as president of the University of Virginia, Jim Ryan is still pondering Passover food.
More specifically, Ryan, who was pushed out of the role over the summer amid mounting GOP pressure on the public university, cited the topic as an example of why he was confused about the “DEI ban” imposed earlier this year by the public school’s board. The ban had been drafted by the office of the state’s Republican governor.
“It’s not clear even today what it means to kill DEI,” Ryan wrote in a letter Friday to the UVA faculty senate telling his side of the story.
He went on: “For example, did it mean that we could no longer try to recruit qualified first-generation students from rural parts of Virginia, or offer financial aid, or even serve matzah in the dining halls during Passover, because each of those efforts would be advancing diversity, equity, and/or inclusion?”
The candid look behind the curtain was a reflection of broader struggles on campuses to satisfy conservative demands on both antisemitism and DEI. As the Trump administration has taken up the mantle of campus antisemitism after the Oct. 7 attacks, it has strong-armed universities to make substantial changes in order to preserve their federal funding — not just to its dealings with Jewish students, but also to other conservative hobbyhorses like DEI initiatives.
The first public university to strike a deal with Trump to end an antisemitism investigation, UVA was also quick to fall in behind a “DEI ban.” The school is now becoming a flashpoint as Glenn Youngkin, the outgoing Republican governor who pushed the DEI ban, and Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, elected as part of a broader “blue wave” opposing Trump, are warring over who gets to appoint Ryan’s replacement.
Ryan, who remains an emeritus professor at the school, wrote that he felt compelled to revisit his resignation because Youngkin’s assertions about the state of affairs at UVA needed to be corrected.
“I think it is time to set the record straight, which will hopefully enable UVA to make all necessary changes in order to end this chapter and begin a fresh, new chapter in the history of a remarkable university,” Ryan wrote.
The DEI ban was only part of UVA’s turmoil this summer. A subsequent Justice Department investigation into the school’s student admissions and hiring practices, Ryan wrote, soon expanded without warning into an antisemitism investigation.
“We assembled voluminous information related to admissions for one or more of our twelve schools, and a few days before the deadline for submission, we would receive another DOJ inquiry asking about another school,” he wrote. “They also sent a letter asking about antisemitism and one alleged incident of antisemitism in particular. Each time the scope of the DOJ inquiry expanded, our lawyers asked for and received extensions for submission of material.”
Ryan did not elaborate on the specifics of the “one alleged incident of antisemitism” in his letter but said that investigators’ interest in antisemitism seemed to be “part of a pattern” of the DOJ throwing more and more allegations against the school. He also speculated that the investigators were simply using such allegations as a leverage tactic against the school.
“It is impossible for me to know, but the timing of the DOJ letters, the ever expanding scope of their inquiries, and their willingness to give us extension after extension made me wonder more than once if the DOJ was not actually interested in our response,” he wrote. He came to conclude that the government wouldn’t drop its investigations, including on antisemitism, unless he stepped down.
Ryan did so this June, after which UVA reached a settlement with the government to drop its antisemitism investigation and others. Unlike other university deals with Trump, this one did not require UVA to pay a fine. Instead, the school agreed to abide by Justice Department guidelines on other issues not related to antisemitism, including the school’s existing general ban on DEI.
As for matzah in the dining hall, no school has yet been criticized as excessively inclusive for offering kosher food. In fact, several universities facing allegations of antisemitism tied to their handling of anti-Israel protests have expanded their kosher dining-hall offerings as part of their overtures to Jewish students.
The post Is dining-hall matzah ‘DEI’? The answer isn’t clear to UVA’s pushed-out ex-president. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Following uproar, IDF cantor to perform at Amsterdam Hanukkah concert after all — but not for everyone
(JTA) — The IDF’s chief cantor will be allowed to perform for Hanukkah in Amsterdam’s Royal Concert Hall — but not for everyone — after tensions over Israel ripped through one of the city’s most popular Jewish celebrations.
The Royal Concert Hall, or Concertgebouw, last week canceled the performance to be hosted by the Chanukah Concert Foundation because it featured Shai Abramson, the “representative cantor of the State of Israel” and chief cantor of the Israeli army. The organization said it based this decision on “the IDF’s active involvement in a controversial war” and “Abramson’s visible representation of that institution.”
The Chanukah Concert Foundation responded by threatening a lawsuit over “restriction of religious freedom.” The conflict spread to protests, rifts in the Jewish community and a war of words between the Israeli government and the mayor of Amsterdam. But on Wednesday, the Concertgebouw and the Jewish foundation announced a compromise.
They settled on separate concerts on Dec. 14, the eve of Hanukkah. During the afternoon, the Concertgebouw will host a public, family-focused concert without Abramson. In the evening, as sundown falls and the first Hanukkah candle is lit, Abramson will sing at two private concerts in the same hall for guests who already bought tickets to see him.
“Over the past week, we have seen the situation escalate into tension. We agree that this damaging trend must stop,” the organizations said in a joint statement. They added that proceeds from Abramson’s concerts would be donated to “a charity that promotes social cohesion in the city.”
Across the Netherlands, residents have grown increasingly critical of Israel and its two-year campaign in Gaza. A survey in September found that 58% of Dutch people wanted their government to take tougher actions against Israel, including boycotts, statements that Israel is committing genocide and recognition of a Palestinian state.
Abramson’s cancellation prompted an outcry among some prominent Dutch Jews and Jewish organizations.
Former lawyer Oscar Hammerstein called for a boycott of the Concertgebouw in the newspaper De Telegraaf. Leon de Winter, Jewish Dutch novelist and columnist for the paper, wrote that “Joseph Goebbels would happily give the Concertgebouw management a pat on the back.”
Dozens of people have protested outside the Concertgebouw in recent days. They were supported by the Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, a Dutch group that advocates for Israel and Jews.
David Serphos, a board member and spokesperson of the Chanukah Concert Foundation, said the cancellation “caused a lot of pain” among many Dutch Jews who see the Concertgebouw as a special place. The building first hosted a Hanukkah concert in December 1914, according to Barry Mehler, the head of a separate Hanukkah concert for the Jewish Music Concerts Foundation. The tradition was interrupted by World War II and revived only in 2015.
“It’s situated in a part of the city where a lot of Jews live,” Serphos said in an interview. “A lot of Jews go to the Concertgebouw either weekly or monthly. They are regular guests.”
An anti-Zionist Dutch Jewish group is planning to protest outside the Concertgebouw on Dec. 14, the day of the Hanukkah concerts, when they will also light a menorah. The group, Erev Rav, an anti-Zionist Jewish group, garnered over 2,200 signatures on a petition backing the Concertgebouw’s cancellation decision and said it was “deeply disappointed” by the compromise with the Chanukah Concert Foundation.
“The Concertgebouw’s initial refusal to provide a stage to a representative of a military perpetrating mass atrocities was a principled position grounded in an understanding of the way Zionist propaganda, including through the arts, sustains a genocidal regime,” Erev Rav said on Instagram, where it also accused the “Dutch Zionist lobby” of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
The Israeli government exerted its own pressure on the Concergebouw. Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli said in a letter to Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema on Nov. 4 that Abramson’s cancellation was “an act of moral cowardice and discrimination.”
Referencing the Holocaust history of the Netherlands, where 75% of Dutch Jews were killed, Chikli said, “Once again, Jews are being told that their identity, their art, and their connection to Israel make them unwelcome.”
Halsema lashed back in her own letter. Acknowledging “the fear and pain felt within Amsterdam’s Jewish community,” she said that she “strongly and unequivocally” rejected Chikli’s suggestion of antisemitism by the Concertgebouw.
“I find the comparison with the persecution and extermination of Jews during the Second World War beyond despicable,” said Halsema. “That history demands accuracy and integrity, not instrumentalization.” She also rebuked “any attempt to pressure or intimidate” local leadership and said that Amsterdam “will not be governed by foreign institutions, nor driven by external political agendas.”
Serphos said the Chanukah Concert Foundation was satisfied with their compromise and hoped to move on from the conflict.
“We want to continue working with the Concertgebouw,” he said. “We want to look ahead and not look back, and we’re happy that we managed to find common ground.”
The post Following uproar, IDF cantor to perform at Amsterdam Hanukkah concert after all — but not for everyone appeared first on The Forward.