Gaza: feathers in the cap

Guardian:

[Former World Bank head and quartet representative] James Wolfensohn, the international community's envoy, warned of the dangers of failure on Monday. "If you want to blow each other up, I have a nice house in Wyoming, and in New York, and in Australia and I will watch with sadness as you do it," he said.

Rich people can care so much.

Also in the Guardian’s article by Jonathan Freedland on Amir Peretz:

[The Gaza agreement] represents the first time the Bush administration has become involved in the detailed, hair-splitting negotiations of which Middle East diplomacy is made. Rice stayed an extra night in Jerusalem, shuttling between the two sides, personally keying in changes to a draft agreement on a laptop in her hotel room. Until now, the Bush team has steered clear of such waist-deep involvement, seeing this as the quicksand that swallowed up so much of the Clinton presidency. That Rice stuck at it is a shift. That she succeeded may give her a taste to do more.

After the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton turned his attention again to the PA-Israel negotiations as his last attempt to secure for himself some type of “legacy.” And in his eagerness to do a deal to cement his place in history, he helped force unacceptable terms onto the Palestinians, and then blamed all failures on Arafat.

Are Bush and Rice going to try something similar now that the Bush presidency is polling so low and there seems to be no positive legacy that Bush is leaving us?

And speaking of the Gaza agreement, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights has this to say:

While PCHR hopes that the agreement will be implemented and that travel and movement of Palestinians, as well as the movement of imports and exports, will be eased, it asserts that:

• Compared to the current disastrous conditions for the movement for passengers and goods and the current state of economic and social strangulation, this agreement is a step forward, and in this sense is positive. However, the agreement is negative in that it maintains the de facto IOF control over Rafah International Crossing Point; it does not guarantee free interaction with the outside world; and the IOF will continue to control the civilian and commercial movement between the Gaza Strip and West Bank;


• The absence of actual Israeli military presence inside the Gaza Strip does not mean that the Israeli military occupation has come to an end. The field conditions in the Gaza Strip prove that IOF have continued to control movement to and from the Gaza Strip. This agreement reinforces the IOF control over, and occupation of the Gaza Strip, which has not come to an end with the implementation of the "Disengagement Plan."


• The agreement reinforces the current deprivation of tens of thousands of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, who do not have ID cards, of their right to travel and meet family members abroad.


• The agreement strengthens the Israeli control over the Gaza Strip economy, and hinders attempts to develop the economy. This is achieved through controlling the movement of imports and exports, which can be stopped by IOF in light of any field developments or under security claims.


• PCHR is concerned over the continuation of IOF violations of international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the continued use of the policy of closure and economic strangulation, as a method of pressurising Palestinians;


• The IOF's bad will, regarding the facilitation of movement and travel, is proven by the delay in re-opening Gaza International Airport, which requires only a few months for renovation and operational readiness. The sea port, whose construction is allowed to start according to the agreement, will need more than two years before it becomes ready for operation.

But no major news outlet seems to have worried about including their views. Palestinian human rights? Boring.