There seems to be a general international consensus that Gaza is gripped by a growing humanitarian crisis that requires the injection of large amounts of international financial aid to prevent a human catastrophe of massive proportions. The international community sees itself as trapped between a rock and a hard place. It wants to grant such financial aid, but does not want to be seen to be supporting the recently elected Hamas government, since Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization in most of those countries whose financial assistance is now being urgently sought.
Israel is under international pressure to remit tax monies of $50 million per month it has been collecting for the Gazans. Israel objects to paying this money to a government whose policy openly and uncompromisingly calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel is struggling to devise a means to get that tax revenue to the civilian population, even though it was that population that elected Hamas to power, thereby causing the current crisis.
Many question whether there is indeed a humanitarian crisis or even the threat of such a crisis in Gaza. An investigative journalist, Arlene Kushner, claims that roughly USD 10 billion in aid has been provided to the Palestinian Authority in Gaza since 1993. Billions of dollars in buildings, businesses and agricultural enterprises and infrastructure were acquired for nothing following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year. Much of this has been trashed in an orgy of looting and mindless destruction. Muhammad Dahlan, former Palestinian Minister of State for Security, told London's Guardian newspaper in August 2004 that a total of USD 5 billion in international donations "have gone down the drain and we don't know to where."
Others compare the situation in Gaza to the Darfur region in southern Sudan, where emaciated children are dying from lack of medical treatment, women trek fifty kilometres to bring back food and water for their children and villages have been totally burned to the ground with the village men being taken away and slaughtered. Commentators point to AIDS, drought and corrupt governments that have created a series of humanitarian crises in southern Africa that are far more serious than in Gaza.
Nightly, on our television screens, we see pictures of angry Gazans demonstrating at funerals of assassinated terrorists or even fighting between themselves. They all seem well fed, well clothed and well armed, hardly what one would expect to see in a humanitarian crisis situation. Perhaps one of the more bizarre sights last week was the Hamas civil militia sporting new guns and new uniforms strutting the streets of Gaza City in open defiance of the recognised security forces. Where the money came from to equip and outfit this smartly turned out militia is unknown.
There is a huge arsenal of weapons stored in Gaza, much of it allegedly purchased with funds provided by the international community for the specific purpose of improving the lives of the civilian population. Offering to buy back that arsenal from the armed militia organizations presently operating under a plethora of names and openly flouting the authority of the government, presents an opportunity to bring this "humanitarian crisis" to an end in Gaza.
It could also help to ease the tensions between Israel and Gaza and restore some authority to the government in Gaza. Perhaps, it could even provide the impetus for a return to the Road Map sponsored by America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.
Australia introduced a gun buy-back program 10 years ago after a massacre in Tasmania led to public outrage and a demand for action to prevent it happening again. At the end of the buy-back, on 31 August 1998, Australia had paid AUS $320 million for 643,726 firearms. True, the Australian buy-back was not the success that was envisioned and Australia has once again seen a proliferation of guns in the community since the buy-back was completed. However, conditioning financial aid on the surrender of weapons would send a clear message to the Gazans that they had a choice ? to continue on their present descent into anarchy and self destruction, or to go down a different path, forsaking armed confrontation in favour of building a better life for themselves.
The ground rules for surrender of weapons could be drafted so as to prevent the disclosure of the identity of the organizations co-operating in the buy-back. The monies paid would be given to the organizations for distribution among their members and supporters. The government would have no interest or claim on these monies since it had no ownership in the weapons being surrendered. The contributing countries would be given access to monitor the implementation of the program to ensure the money was being distributed to the civilian population. And finally, the weapons themselves would be publicly dismantled and destroyed - never to be used again.
The Gazan economy would be rejuvenated by the infusion of these monies into the system. A growing market for goods and services, and greater employment opportunities, would be created. This would, in turn, create revenue for the government in the form of increased taxes, which could be used to provide or improve essential services such as roads, housing, hospitals and schools.
If this offer is refused, the international community should spend its aid money elsewhere, on the myriad number of humanitarian crises occurring in other parts of the world.
If the Gazans turn down this offer, then let them eat bullets, for they would have brought this "humanitarian crisis" on themselves.
Israel is under international pressure to remit tax monies of $50 million per month it has been collecting for the Gazans. Israel objects to paying this money to a government whose policy openly and uncompromisingly calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel is struggling to devise a means to get that tax revenue to the civilian population, even though it was that population that elected Hamas to power, thereby causing the current crisis.
Many question whether there is indeed a humanitarian crisis or even the threat of such a crisis in Gaza. An investigative journalist, Arlene Kushner, claims that roughly USD 10 billion in aid has been provided to the Palestinian Authority in Gaza since 1993. Billions of dollars in buildings, businesses and agricultural enterprises and infrastructure were acquired for nothing following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year. Much of this has been trashed in an orgy of looting and mindless destruction. Muhammad Dahlan, former Palestinian Minister of State for Security, told London's Guardian newspaper in August 2004 that a total of USD 5 billion in international donations "have gone down the drain and we don't know to where."
Others compare the situation in Gaza to the Darfur region in southern Sudan, where emaciated children are dying from lack of medical treatment, women trek fifty kilometres to bring back food and water for their children and villages have been totally burned to the ground with the village men being taken away and slaughtered. Commentators point to AIDS, drought and corrupt governments that have created a series of humanitarian crises in southern Africa that are far more serious than in Gaza.
Nightly, on our television screens, we see pictures of angry Gazans demonstrating at funerals of assassinated terrorists or even fighting between themselves. They all seem well fed, well clothed and well armed, hardly what one would expect to see in a humanitarian crisis situation. Perhaps one of the more bizarre sights last week was the Hamas civil militia sporting new guns and new uniforms strutting the streets of Gaza City in open defiance of the recognised security forces. Where the money came from to equip and outfit this smartly turned out militia is unknown.
There is a huge arsenal of weapons stored in Gaza, much of it allegedly purchased with funds provided by the international community for the specific purpose of improving the lives of the civilian population. Offering to buy back that arsenal from the armed militia organizations presently operating under a plethora of names and openly flouting the authority of the government, presents an opportunity to bring this "humanitarian crisis" to an end in Gaza.
It could also help to ease the tensions between Israel and Gaza and restore some authority to the government in Gaza. Perhaps, it could even provide the impetus for a return to the Road Map sponsored by America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.
Australia introduced a gun buy-back program 10 years ago after a massacre in Tasmania led to public outrage and a demand for action to prevent it happening again. At the end of the buy-back, on 31 August 1998, Australia had paid AUS $320 million for 643,726 firearms. True, the Australian buy-back was not the success that was envisioned and Australia has once again seen a proliferation of guns in the community since the buy-back was completed. However, conditioning financial aid on the surrender of weapons would send a clear message to the Gazans that they had a choice ? to continue on their present descent into anarchy and self destruction, or to go down a different path, forsaking armed confrontation in favour of building a better life for themselves.
The ground rules for surrender of weapons could be drafted so as to prevent the disclosure of the identity of the organizations co-operating in the buy-back. The monies paid would be given to the organizations for distribution among their members and supporters. The government would have no interest or claim on these monies since it had no ownership in the weapons being surrendered. The contributing countries would be given access to monitor the implementation of the program to ensure the money was being distributed to the civilian population. And finally, the weapons themselves would be publicly dismantled and destroyed - never to be used again.
The Gazan economy would be rejuvenated by the infusion of these monies into the system. A growing market for goods and services, and greater employment opportunities, would be created. This would, in turn, create revenue for the government in the form of increased taxes, which could be used to provide or improve essential services such as roads, housing, hospitals and schools.
If this offer is refused, the international community should spend its aid money elsewhere, on the myriad number of humanitarian crises occurring in other parts of the world.
If the Gazans turn down this offer, then let them eat bullets, for they would have brought this "humanitarian crisis" on themselves.