In the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel in October, U.S. state legislatures are gearing up to respond to the crisis both symbolically and through concrete measures. Legislatures in at least eight states that were in session late in 2023 have already denounced the attacks, with more states expected to follow suit in the upcoming 2024 sessions. The lawmakers’ response is driven by personal histories, such as that of Florida state Sen. Lori Berman, who draws on her family’s experience during the Holocaust to emphasize the importance of taking action against evil. However, the response is not unanimous, and divisions are beginning to arise among politicians at the state level.
Since the October attack, over 59 pieces of legislation related to Hamas or Israel have been introduced in state legislatures across the country. The majority of these measures take the form of resolutions condemning the attack and expressing support for Israel. In states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, resolutions denouncing the attack passed either unanimously or with near-unanimous support. These symbolic gestures show solidarity and send a clear message of support to Israel in the ongoing conflict.
While condemning the attack is widely popular, the manner in which the resolutions are drafted and the broader implications they carry can lead to complications. In Michigan, for example, the democratic-led state House failed to agree on a resolution due to division within the Democratic party. Arab American lawmakers refused to support a resolution that condemned Hamas and endorsed Israel’s response. Additionally, a separate resolution in Michigan calls for the resignation of Democratic U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, over statements perceived as advocating for the eradication of Israel. These divisions within the party highlight the complexities of formulating a unified legislative response.
Outside of condemning the attacks, state legislatures are also focusing on addressing issues related to antisemitism and Palestinian-oriented events on university campuses. In Pennsylvania, Republican lawmakers recently defeated legislation that aimed to allocate funds to the University of Pennsylvania’s veterinary school due to accusations of tolerating antisemitism. Similarly, Indiana’s Republican House Speaker Todd Huston prioritized addressing antisemitism on college campuses following the Israel-Hamas conflict. A bill passed by the Indiana House attempted to define antisemitism as religious discrimination and create discrimination-free educational environments. However, the bill did not progress in the Senate.
Some of the legislative proposals have sparked controversy because of the restrictions they impose on speech and funding. For instance, a Florida measure introduced in 2023 sought to force public university students supporting groups designated as terrorists, including Hamas, to pay out-of-state tuition. Similarly, a New Jersey proposal aimed to target university funding, prohibiting them from supporting events or organizations promoting antisemitism or hate speech on campuses. While the sponsors of these measures argue for their necessity, critics find that they may infringe upon free speech rights and can be deemed unconstitutional.
Edward Ahmed Michell, the national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, raises concerns about the potential unconstitutionality of speech-restricting measures and highlights the exclusion of support for the people of Gaza in the pro-Israel resolutions. He emphasizes the importance of finding a balanced approach that addresses the concerns of all affected parties. It is crucial for state legislatures to consider the broader implications of their actions and strive to encourage dialogue, understanding, and ultimately, a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
As U.S. state legislatures reconvene in January, their response to the Israel-Gaza conflict takes center stage. The resolutions and proposals introduced across various states reflect the diverse perspectives within the political landscape. While there is overwhelming support for condemning the attack and expressing solidarity with Israel, disagreements arise when it comes to the broader implications of these actions. Efforts to address antisemitism and Palestinian-oriented events on university campuses also bring about debates on free speech and funding. Ultimately, a balanced approach that acknowledges the complexities of the conflict and promotes open dialogue is essential in ensuring a constructive and lasting impact from the state legislatures.