OTHER VIEWS

Hillel: Why A Community School

W by is today the right time for
Hillel Day School to stake its
claim as a community Jewish
school? Hillel has always welcomed all
Jewish children; our current student body
represents multiple streams of Judaism.
Why change now?
Hillel's Board of Trustees began exploring
that question in early 2008. At that time, the
board took on a sacred challenge by engag-
ing in a philosophical discussion about the
future of Hillel, its position in the commu-
nity and its stance as a Jewish school.
This exploration included an exami-
nation of trends in the Detroit Jewish
community and the changing nature
of Judaism in North America. While we
could argue that today's Hillel Day School
successfully serves today's students, the
board's responsibility is to plan for the
future, while honoring the past and build-
ing on the strengths of the present.
Sociologist Steve Cohen, a widely
respected expert on trends in American
Jewry, reminds us that beyond affiliation,
beyond anything else, the most effective
tool American Jewry has is Jewish educa-

tion. Jewish education dimin-
ishes the frequency of intermar-
riage and elevates adult Jewish
engagement. Day schools in
particular socialize Jews into
the world of practice; they teach
children to "do Jewish:'
In 21st century America, an
increasing number of younger
Jews are looking for personal
Jewish meaning, regardless of
affiliation. Many see themselves
as "just Jewish:' and create com-
munities that speak to their
spiritual and religious needs.
This is the world our children will enter as
young adults. We must help them develop
the tools to thrive in that environment,
confident in their Judaism and their place
in the Jewish community at large. A day
school education can play a significant
role in nurturing that confidence.
In this changing world, Hinds board
recognized an opportunity to break down
perceived or real barriers among Jews in our
own community. If even one Metro Detroit
Jewish family did not feel the school was

accessible to them because of a
particular affiliation, it would be
one family too many. The board
decided to send the message that
Hillel promotes Jewish tolerance,
inclusiveness and respect for all
Jews because we share a com-
mon fate.
Looking toward the future,
the school is more firmly
positioned as an educational
home for any family wishing
an excellent general studies
program coupled with a seri-
ous Jewish education for their
children. The school will still be guided
by Halachah (Jewish law) and the values
that have been central to Hillel since our
founding more than 50 years ago: Talmud
Torah (Torah study), Derech Eretz (honor
and respect), Ve'ahavta (a loving and per-
sonal relationship with God), Tikkun Olam
(perfecting the world), Kedushah (holiness
as expressed through mitzvot), Tzionut
(Zionism) and Klal Yisrael (the unity of
the Jewish people).
In a school that promotes maximum

inclusivity, Jewish observance is crucial.
Hillel will maintain its halachic commit-
ment to daily prayer, kashrut, and Shabbat
and holiday observance. Differences in
practice and approach to Jewish ritual
have their place in the synagogue and in
the home; our school, on the other hand,
is in the powerful position to celebrate
what we share in common for the sake of a
stronger tomorrow.
More binds us together as a Jewish
people than separates us. All too often, our
community focuses on our differences.
Our children hear the arguments between
Jews and internalize them as they grow
to adulthood. In our small corner of the
world, in our little community, we can say,
"Enough is enough." The time has come
for real inclusivity, for real community
building — for Klal Yisrael (the unity of
the Jewish people) to become a prevailing
value. ❑

Steve Freedman is head of school at Hillel Day

School of Metropolitan Detroit in Farmington Hills.

Related commentary: Editor's Letter, page A5.

Olmert's Questionable Conversion

S

o what are we to make of Israel
former Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert's "resignation-bed confes-
sion" that Israel should surrender much
of the West Bank and agree to a divided
Jerusalem?
How do we interpret his "seeing the
light" the day after his resignation that was
rendered in an atmosphere of suspicions
about possible corruption?
Do we commend him for candor,
independence and courage, or is he to be
condemned as a political turncoat who
abandoned the beliefs that he held for 35
years?
The answer is quite simple: He is guilty
of political grandstanding and opportun-
ism at its best and political cowardice at
its worst. The issue is not whether he is
right or wrong. The problems are very
complex, steeped in history, several wars
and, ultimately, involve the only issue that
counts, Israel's security
But Olmert should have expressed his
change of heart long before when he went
public Sept. 29 in an interview with the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot.
Specifically, he said in the interview that
any occupied land should be exchanged
for the same quantity of Israeli territory.

On Jerusalem, he said east
Jerusalem had to be handed
over to the Palestinians with
"special solutions" for the holy
sites.
His statements are in direct
opposition to more than 40
years of Israeli policy, and
Olmert has helped develop it
for 35 years as a member of the
Knesset, mayor of the Jerusalem
he now wants to divide, and
then prime minister.
"I am not trying to justify
retroactively what I did for
some 35 years:' he said. "For a large por-
tion of these years, I was unwilling to look
at reality in all its depths."
Really? That does not say much about
his public service and, worse, what he was
unable to do in 35 years, he managed to
accomplish "overnight." The question that
cannot be answered is: What is his moti-
vation?
Why now, a day after his resignation?
Surely, these beliefs were in the making
long before he expressed them. Moreover,
he had a responsibility to the Israeli public
to make his views known while prime
minister.

- It is easy to parade political
principles when nothing is at
stake. If he had articulated his
views as prime minister, he
could have been held account-
able. He would have given
the Israeli public a choice
— to condemn or support
— a choice, in a democracy, it
deserves.
Even Palestinian officials
said they would have pre-
ferred that Olmert made those
comments while having the
authority to negotiate these
ticklish issues. Now, they are meaningless,
coming from what amounts to a private
citizen, one who faces potential corruption
charges.
What Olmert has "accomplished" is to
undermine his successor, whether it is
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni or someone
else. She or he will now be faced with and
will have to deal with Olmert's political
conversion from the day they take office.
We can expect that the Palestinians and
others supporting the surrender of the
West Bank and east Jerusalem to continu-
ally quote Olmert, a former prime minis-
ter, one who was a staunch conservative

yet.
This will put enormous additional pres-
sure on future negotiators and make the
development of a coherent policy and
"peace" negotiations that much more dif-
ficult.
He also violated an unwritten principle
generally held by office holders in democ-
racies — particularly at the level of prime
minister, president and other top-ranking
officials — that they avoid making policy
statements as they leave office. Nor do
they, generally, criticize their successors.
The reasons are, of course, obvious. In
American politics, for instance, former
presidents and other major high office-
holders such as Gerald Ford, George
H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton,
Colin Powell and George Schultz held
their tongues once they left their posts. A
notable exception has been Jimmy Carter
who, after being defeated, not only criti-
cized successors, but has actually worked
to undermine their policies.
Another exception, former U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. On
leaving office, she said she would never
criticize her successors, recognizing the

Olmert's on page A38

iN

October 16 • 2008

A37