The passing of a motion to twin the LSE Students’ Union with the Islamic University of Gaza at last Thursday’s UGM has caused much controversy, after complaints over the voting system used suggests the results were unfair. The final vote was won by 30 votes; 161 for, 131 against and with 10 abstentions.

The motion resolved to twin the LSESU with the Islamic University of Gaza, so to “show solidarity with the students there who have had their campus bombed and their colleagues killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces.” Proposer of the motion, Samer Araabi, stated that the twinning was in “no way a sign of support for Hamas” but to support the people of Gaza and their right to education. The motion states that due to Israeli attacks, blockades and military incursions on Gaza, and the occupation of Palestinian territories by the Israeli military, that this right is currently being breached.

The motion faced large opposition from many members of the Israeli and Jewish Societies, who launched a “Hummus not Hamas” campaign to create awareness of their perceived problems with the twinning. The Opposers of the motion, Erica Dobin, alleged that Hamas had built the university, many prominent Hamas members had been educated at the University and that bombs and weaponry were built and stored in the basement of the establishment.

Questions were asked from the floor regarding the choice of such a controversial university. The Student Union has been twinned with An-Najah National University in Nablus, Palestine since January 2007, but this is due to expire at the end of November. Students also mandated the Union to support the Right to Education Campaign in 2007, based in Palestine and to raise awareness of the impact of the Israeli occupation in the right to education of Palestinians. Araabi and other proposers acknowledged this twinning as a “fantastic success” but wanted to “provide this opportunity so a different area could benefit”.

An amendment was proposed to twin the Student Union with many other universities across the world who could benefit from such a twinning. Kate Strivens, the proposer, said this would aim not to “isolate student bodies” whilst also giving these universities greater opportunities. These included educational establishments in Burma, Israel, Palestine, Sudan and Latin America. Opposer to the Amendment, Mira Hammad, said in principle this was a good idea, but that it was not well thought out and that each institution would require different Union resolutions. Hammad claimed that large number of twinnings could make the concept a “vacuous exercise.” Hammad also offered to second any motion put forward that would further the right to education in other countries. The amendment fell.

The final vote was taken by paper ballot, the back page of Order of Business. After initial confusion over the placement of the ballot boxes inside and outside the Old Theatre, concerns were raised to the Constitution and Steering Committee that the process was being abused. Accusations were made that some voters, who were voting for the motion, were voting more than once by gaining a multiple papers and voting in a different box. There were also votes counted from those who did not attend the meeting and no regulation of those voting who had sat in the balcony.

When similarly controversial issue, “Defend Gaza, Condemn the Israeli Massacre”, was voted on last year, voting was carried out in the Quad through a controlled paper ballot vote. Ben Grabiner, President of the Israel Society, questioned C& S as to why this was not done for this motion. He claimed this would have helped eliminate voter fraud.

C&S released a statement on Friday afternoon after a meeting to determine the constitutionality of the voting procedures used at the UGM. The statement asserted that: “the evidence does not suggest that these issues affected the overall result.” Although agreed that the system used by the “Constitution was not perfect”, the committee has deemed that the “procedures were fair and constitutional.”
Grabiner remarked that: “The motion, debate and vote have been handled in a pretty shambolic way by the Union and C& S.” He concluded that “Once again they have alienated large sections of the student body. We are now considering how to take this further.”

In response to the allegations of electoral fraud, Hammad said: “The procedures were pretty simple and were explained to the UGM by C&S and there are no allegations of a concerted effort by anybody to cheat. I am at a loss to understand why the validity of C&S’s work has been called into question, unless it is because those opposing the motion are attempting to produce the result they would like through bureaucratic rather than democratic means. That the motion itself passed by a reasonable majority is testament of the willingness of the SU to stand up for the universal right of education for all students, regardless of where they are or who their government is.”

LSESU General Secretary Aled Fisher believed that: “The Constitutional and Steering Committee did their best on Thursday under what were difficult circumstances. No one has actually reported seeing anyone successfully vote twice, and the only attempt was stopped successfully by a member of C&S.”

Fisher added: “Under our current procedures, there are few choices about what to do at UGM in terms of voting. Choosing a secret ballot was better than simply having people voting with their hands visibly and publicly, as this can lead to intimidation. The difficulty is organising a UGM vote once again shows the inadequacy of our current structures and the need for change and reform.”