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