10 | APRIL 6 • 2023
the other side. It must con-
fine itself to its original pur-
pose: protecting the indepen-
dence of the justice system
against the intrusion of the
government.
A miracle has occurred:
the labor unions joined the
effort to defend democracy
in full force, the economy’s
big employers stood ready
to close the shopping malls,
the universities stopped
teaching, and the doctors
suspended their mission in
non-life-threatening situa-
tions — despite the fact that
half of Israel’s workers, con-
sumers, students and physi-
cians voted for the coalition
parties only five months
ago. There is a mature civil
sobriety here that transcends
political considerations.
And this is indeed a con-
stitutional moment, different
from any other moment we
have experienced before. In
regular times, politicians and
voters use their power and
their democratic right to pro-
mote the values and interests
that are important to them
and to their identity groups.
But at this constitutional
moment, we are prepared to
act on behalf of values and
interests greater than those
specific to each of us.
We Israelis are accustomed
to the nobility of heroism in
battle. This time we are expe-
riencing a different, equally
important form of valor, civil
heroism. Heroism in battle
grants us life and political
independence; civil heroism
ensures our freedom and
infuses life and political inde-
pendence with appropriate
meaning.
Yedidia Stern is the president of
the Jewish People Policy Institute
and is Professor Emeritus at Bar-
Ilan University.
continued from page 8
Where was the
Jewish Presence?
Recently, an anti-Israeli activist
was invited to speak to the stu-
dent body at Bloomfield Hills
High School in the name of
diversity. Huwaida Arraf shared
her powerful feelings about the
conflict between the Palestinians
and the Israelis. In our opinion,
she shared her narrative without
nuance or adequate historical
context. The presentation was
lacking in balance. There was
clear delineation between the
Israelis as the oppressors and the
Palestinians as the oppressed.
The Jewish students felt intim-
idated and extremely uncomfort-
able given Arraf’s demonization
of Israel. She has a history of
having called for armed violence,
when necessary, against Israelis.
Tensions reached a boiling
point at BHHS leaving Jews and
Muslims scared, angry, unsettled
and unsupported by administra-
tion. The fallout was addressed
by many speakers at the Board
meeting. A BHHS Muslim stu-
dent challenged the accusation
that Ms. Arraf might be antise-
mitic as “her husband (Adam
Shapiro) is Jewish.
”
Mr. Shapiro, a pro-Palestin-
ian activist, however, in a 2003
interview with the Guardian
newspaper, said, “I don’t identify
as Jewish. I see it as a religion
rather than an ethnicity and, as I
have no religious feelings, I don’t
regard myself as Jewish.
”
We feel that the endorsement
of the speaker by the BHHS stu-
dent diversity committee and,
ultimately, their staff supervisors,
led to this morass.
We were heartbroken at
what transpired at the Board of
Education (BOE) meeting March
20 (“Diversity Day Divisiveness
Continues,
” March 30, page 12).
There was a short business meet-
ing followed by more than two
hours of commentary by mem-
bers of the overflow audience.
The special agenda item (the
appropriateness of Ms. Arraf’s
presentation) was introduced with
a long letter written by members
of the Muslim Unity Center. It
focused on the discrimination
and hate the Muslim students and
community face regularly. As stat-
ed in the letter, they felt that the
administration catered to a group
(Jews) who took offense to the
choice of speaker, the Palestinian
Huwaida Arraf.
It did little to take into con-
sideration the Jewish students
who had been impacted by the
comments of Arraf. There was
no acknowledgement of Arraf’s
rhetoric concerning Israel as an
oppressor, apartheid entity and
a people undeserving of having
their state recognized. There was
no such opening statement by
those representing the Jewish
community. There was no men-
tion of the rampant antisemitism
that pervades society. It was
as if there were a debate with
only one side invited to give an
opening argument. How was
that allowed to happen? Was the
opportunity to speak not offered
by those who set the agenda or
was there no interest or availabil-
ity of Jewish leadership to offer a
differing perspective and to help
with the healing process?
A local imam spoke first and
focused mainly on Islamophobia
and how Muslim students are
impacted. Rabbi Asher Lopatin
shared his credentials and
announced himself a Zionist. He
spoke about the impact of the
speech by Arraf on the Jewish
students and the need for all to
be tolerant, accepting of those
who are “other” and for us all
to get along. He stated that the
school had made a mistake in
giving Ms. Arraf a platform in
that diversity program. His pre-
sentation seemed more balanced
and considerate of all involved.
I believe close to 50 people
spoke. Initially, most of the
speakers were parents of BHHS
students. Most of those who sub-
sequently spoke were students.
They were prepared, mostly elo-
quent, and passionate. It seemed
as if they had been coached.
Most saw no problem with the
content of the presentation or
the speaker herself. They shared
their personal encounters with
Islamophobia and bigotry and
the fact that they were made to
feel uncomfortable and unwel-
come at school. They feared for
their safety. Many seemed to
have come with their parents. It
seemed as if there were very, very
few Jewish students present and a
large number of Muslim students
(many of whom spoke).
As per our count, not one Jewish
student spoke. The non-partici-
pation from those Jewish students
who felt hurt, betrayed, wronged
and scared stood out like a sore
thumb. We are so saddened and at
a loss to explain this. Perhaps they
were fearful or felt unsupported by
the larger Jewish community.
We were also struck by the
apparent dearth of Jewish lead-
ers, educators and clergy at the
meeting. I was left feeling that the
concerns of the Jewish students
had been marginalized, dismissed
and without representation.
We can only hope that some-
thing good will come out of this
incredibly uncomfortable, unset-
tling experience. I am scared of
what this portends for our people.
We look to our leaders for coun-
sel, advice and visibility. What
ever happened to “Never Again?”
— Respectfully,
Renee and Jay Kozlowski
letters
PURELY COMMENTARY