A controversial piece of legislation pledging the Student Association’s support for the U.S.-Israel relationship has stirred controversy within SA branches and among students on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Senate passed the bill by a narrow margin Tuesday and SA President Phil Robinson is currently deciding whether to approve or veto the resolution after an emotional two-hour debate Sunday night, during which the sponsor of the legislation called for its veto.
Students from the pro-Israel community, including the Student Alliance For Israel and Israel Peace Project, proposed the legislation as part of an effort to get student organizations to sign on to the coalition’s petition in favor of “maintaining and enhancing a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and Israel.”
“There is an overarching goal to educate and demonstrate the necessity for a strong U.S. and Israel relationship,” said junior Jon Panikoff, a member of the Israel Peace Project.
Following a contentious debate lasting nearly an hour, the resolution passed the Senate with nine senators voting in favor, seven in opposition, four abstentions and one no-vote. Robinson and senators voiced opposition to the process by which the bill was introduced and voted upon.
The Senate voted to suspend the body’s usual rules, which involves sending new legislation to committee for intensive consideration by a group of senators experienced with dealing with similar subjects, and instead considered the legislation for passage that evening.
“I didn’t have a chance to read the (legislation) until I got to the meeting that night. For such a controversial issue, senators should have had prior notification and (the SA) should have notified the student body (of the issue),” said Sen. Mark Hershfield (Law).
Robinson also criticized the suspension of the rules.
“I’m thoroughly disappointed they suspended rules and passed it without realizing what this would cause,” he said. “They need to do their homework … it’s unfair to burden the executive when we didn’t have the dialogue that was needed before it was passed.”
Sen. Chrissy Trotta (CCAS-U) wrote the legislation with the help of members of the campus pro-Israel community. She said the Senate had to consider the document Tuesday evening because the organizations circulating the petition were planning to publish their stance and those who supported it in a full-page ad in the first issue of next semester’s Hatchet.
However, Trotta said Sunday that she told Robinson to veto the legislation and regrets that she voted to suspend the rules.
“What I thought was that the resolution supported the values the U.S. and Israel share,” Trotta said. “But it was interpreted by students as a political statement by the SA … and was creating more of a divisive atmosphere.”
“I still personally agree with the legislation, but I don’t feel it’s our role to divide students,” she said. “This isn’t necessarily an issue on campus that the SA needs to take a stand on … and there is no need to unnecessarily divide students.”
Student groups, including the College Democrats and College Republicans, and more than 1,000 students have already signed the pro-Israel petition. Panikoff noted that at least 36 other university student governments have passed resolutions supporting Israel.
“I felt that because so many students were involved in the initiative and put forth so much effort, this issue was clearly something the SA should become involved with and take a stance on,” Trotta said.
Some student groups opposed the legislation, including the Muslim Student Association and the Islamic Alliance for Justice, noting concerns about issues such as the resolution’s limited publicity.
MSA President Amna Arshad also cited the “debatable (nature) of some of the resolution’s statements.” IAJ President Ahmad Maaty noted in a statement concerning the legislation that it “ensures that the SA … will achieve nothing more than offending and intimidating the students whom it represents.”
Senators at the meeting, while debating Trotta’s legislation, also questioned whether the document’s language was explicit enough or even merited the SA’s consideration.
Recently elected Rules Committee Chairman Omar Woodard (ESIA-U) said he is wary of the SA dealing with large foreign policy issues that don’t necessarily directly effect students.
“I abstained from voting because I was unsure of whether or not student government should be involved with such issues,” Woodard said.
“(The legislation) was never a religious thing but rather a chance for the SA to weigh in on an issue that many students cared about,” Trotta said.
Robinson said Sunday night that he is “50-50” on the legislation but noted that he would heavily weigh Trotta’s recommendation for a veto, adding that it is “very powerful for a sponsor of legislation to ask for a veto.” He also said that debate on the issue has prompted him to call for a January town hall meeting on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the legislation.
-Mosheh Oinounou contributed to this report.
