A Postmortem on the ill-fated Gaza referendum

Dear All,

OK, here goes: In the aftermath of last week’s Union referendum, many of you blamed the failure of the “Twin with Students in Gaza” motion on the extremely loud and frequently deranged campaign by a small group of what Nima called “frothing” Zionists, who equated the motion to “Twinning with Hamas”. Obviously, it is fairly difficult to be contemplative when you’ve just suffered disappointment, and a band of goons appear to be gloating at your expense. However, I think it’s easy to overestimate the influence of the virulent few, and conclude that there was never any hope against such fear-mongering.

I do not think that this is what actually happened, or that all hope is lost. It is worth noting that the pro-motion Facebook group actually had about 200 more members than the primary anti-group, and that there was a lot of overlap between the several auxiliary anti-groups. Furthermore, only about 50 people were active participants in the flame wars on these groups, while roughly 2000 people voted on the measure in the end. So, I think the result is more accurately attributed to a failure to clearly define and communicate the motion’s goals, particularly to the many Warwick students who are not especially familiar or concerned with the Middle East conflict. The frequently irrelevant and rambling online debate was at times reflective of this general confusion. I hope the practical criticism that follows will convince you that future campaigns on behalf of people in need, in Gaza or elsewhere, can avoid a similarly unpleasant fate. I also hope I’m not accidentally validating any of the ridiculous stupidity that occurred. And, as always, hindsight is 20/20.

Firstly, the choice to describe the motion as “twinning” was unfortunate. Several conversations with those of you involved in the campaign have confirmed my suspicion that the actual “twinning” (through an existing organization for this purpose) was fairly incidental to the primary aim of the campaign, which was to provide moral and educational support to students whose lives were being ruined by the Middle East conflict. This may seem like a trivial point – the technical meaning of “twinning” quickly became the subject of a long and rather tedious debate – but I’m fairly certain that an identical motion called something like “Outreach to Students in Gaza” would have been more likely to succeed. The tagline of any campaign is important, and should have been considered more carefully here.

Another outcome of the “twinning” issue was placing the Islamic University in Gaza under the spotlight. The first question that came into my mind when considering the motion through the eyes of someone unfamiliar with its circumstances (…as one does) was: “Why this particular university?” From the viewpoint of the organizers, the answer was simple: “Because they are the desperate victims of a humanitarian crisis.” Unfortunately, for many people, this is simply not sufficient. Perhaps this is due to a combination of ignorance, desensitization to such pleas through the media, and plain old indifference, but these things are always issues for campaigns. The particular problem here was that twinning was interpreted by many people (including myself) as implying endorsement of the University itself, rather than just its students.

In retrospect, the cost of endorsing IUG was a small and acceptable one, given the benefit to the students. However, if associating with IUG in particular (rather than Gazan or Palestinian university students in general) was not important to the meaning of the motion itself, then it was an unnecessary price to pay. Would a motion that did not specify IUG as the beneficiary have been less meaningful – symbolically or practically? I don’t believe so, but the association with IUG opened the door for questioning of IUG’s political connections, the anti-Semitism of an ex-rector, and in my case, whether the university discriminated on religious grounds. When you propose associating with a religious university in a far-away land known primarily for a perpetual ideological conflict, you must choose carefully, and be prepared to argue the merits of that university. I submit that the organizers of the campaign were not well prepared to discuss these issues because, to them, the IUG connection wasn’t important. I think that many “ordinary” people, and not just the Zionists, disagreed.

One issue that I think mattered much more to the disinterested masses than to the campaigners was whether a Union referendum was a logical form for this campaign to take. I think many of the people who abstained or voted against the motion did so whilst wondering: “Why is the Warwick Students Union getting involved in this?” Without rehashing the usual arguments about how much the Union should get involved in national or global politics: I personally believe that it is legitimate and important for the Union to take a stand on issues over which it has little practical influence, and that some positive action is better than nothing.

This said, confusion emerged between the stated aim of the campaign – to promote the universal right to education – and the desire of the proponents to also send a message of support to the Palestinians. Under most circumstances, these goals would be totally consistent. From the point of view of the SU, which is better positioned to help other students in need in other parts of the world (not least in the UK), the preference given to Gazan university students, over others in equal or worse situations, required better explanation. When it then emerged that IUG was already “twinned” with three UK universities, the additional benefit of Warwick’s educational resources became more questionable. (although I think this was a little known fact, and like most of these arguments, had nothing much to do with the loudest opposition…)

Again, something is better than nothing, and IUG’s need remains extremely serious, but I expect I was not alone in concluding that there were a number of less costly and more beneficial ways for the SU to promote universal education, which had seemingly not been considered. Given this conclusion, the claim that the motion was not supposed to convey a “partisan stance” in the Middle East became very difficult to believe.The use of Palestinian colors on the slogans, and emphasis on the fact that these students were in Gaza reinforced this impression, for better or worse. I think a motion “Condemning Israel’s humanitarian offences” would have been more consistent, and possibly more likely to succeed. Heck, I voted for the previous one. Another option would have been to launch the outreach campaign completely apart from the SU, i.e. through a society, although I suspect that the symbolic value would have been diminished somewhat. I leave it up to the campaigners to decide whether they made the right strategic decision in this respect, as I’m personally not sure.

Overall, I think the lesson is that if you put something to a vote by all Warwick students, you must communicate about it in a way that makes sense to the “general population” rather than assuming that they understand everything you do about the situation. Conversely, one should not assume that they are just plain stupid, and fall prey to every screaming banshee that comes along. This defeat was the result of missed opportunities, not the boundless ignorance and pliability of Warwick students.

If you have managed to read this far, then congratulations, it’s nearly over. All that remains for me to say is that I hope the chaos that surrounded this whole event hasn’t totally disillusioned everyone. I also hope for an end to ideological conflicts around the world. In both cases, I fear that it could take a long time, plenty of patience, and a lot of good communication.

Simon