Mohammed Dahlan distorting the facts, for the record
Mohammed Dahlan, member of the Fatah leadership and until last month head of the Palestinian Authority's security organization in Gaza, explains to readers of the British Guardian, why he’ll stand by Arafat as long as Israel’s against him.

“President Bush's plan for the Middle East,” he says, “points … to an American decision to give up on the peace process.” Hah! That’s a laugh! What peace process? Maybe the process of peacefully walking into a pizza parlor and pushing the button.

It gets better: “…there was no serious offer made at Camp David, no solution floated that we would have regretted passing up.” Huh? Oh, sorry, it’s a misprint. Now read that again but exchange an “i” for the “a” in “passing”. F**k off, Dahlan! (Go wash your mouth out, Imshin! Now!)

“If we had been offered at Camp David the kind of outline package we reached at Taba, we could have had a deal. But Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, blocked the attempts to reach agreement because Israeli elections were two weeks down the line.” You liar! You know very well that an agreement in Taba was Barak’s only chance of maybe winning the elections and even that was slim – it was too late. We Israelis were already in a state of shock and horror because of your violent “uprising”, following your turning down an offer so radical, so extremely generous it probably would have plunged Israel into a civil war.

“There was a strategic mistake built into the 1993 Oslo agreement: to go for an interim, transitional deal, when the two peoples were ready for a comprehensive peace. The interim period allowed the Israelis to carry on as they had before, pressing ahead with settlements, closures and land expropriation, behaving like a classic occupier.” Yeah, right. We carried on just as before, except the teeny weeny, little, unimportant, hardly noticeable fact that we let Arafat and his horrid little terrorist pals come and live a few minutes away from us, and gradually let them take over 40% of the West Bank and Gaza. Classic occupiers?

“There were also constant changes of leadership on the Israeli side,” Well, excuse us for being democratic! “…which led to the cancellation of agreements and understandings.” You asshole, even Netanyahu got out of Hebron, despite the intense pressure he was under from the Right-wingers that surrounded him.

“Throughout the Oslo period, we took serious measures to prevent attacks by the opposition (Islamists).” Too little, too late. By the time you got round to it, too many Israeli ”victims of peace” had been blown up. No “confidence-building steps” would convince Israeli skeptics, and your main partner had been murdered.

“But the Islamists grew in the shadow of the failure of the peace process”. Quite the opposite -the Islamists caused the failure of the peace process by blowing up innocent Israelis, unhindered by the Palestinian “Authority”.

“People's frustrations with the continuing occupation, closures, new settlements, postponements and economic squeeze were reaching boiling point.” I remember most of the Palestinians’ frustration at that time being directed at Arafat, who skillfully managed to redirect it against Israel. As always - the master-survivor.

“Even then, if Israel had not resorted to large-scale killings of demonstrators” …AND the armed fighters who were standing in their midst and shooting at the soldiers…

“…as long as the Israelis are against Arafat, I'm with him.” Of course you are. You’re already regarded by some as a collaborator, just because Israel didn’t go into Gaza.

“While the chairman is under siege, it would be wrong to criticise him - that would only serve Israel and America. There is no question of changing the leadership in these circumstances.” Fair enough. Like we shouldn’t evacuate settlements under fire. That’s why we still might have to get rid of Arafat ourselves. Ah, but Dahlan’s thought of that hasn’t he? “If they try to expel or kill (Arafat) … they will come to regret it bitterly.” I think Arafat will be regretting it more. But will you, Dahlan?

And yet, “we need to push ahead with far-reaching reform, not to please the Americans … but from the point of view of Palestinian interests…” Not because it’s a good idea or because the people deserve it. ” We need to change the faces of those in power, hold people to account, cut the number of ministers, reduce wasteful spending and cut back the number of security agencies.” Hey Dahlan! How about we start accountability with your Swiss bank account?

“The biggest obstacle to peace has been the Israeli mindset. They have understood peace solely in terms of their own domestic politics and disputes.” He’s confusing the Israeli public with Israeli politicians, the twerp. (He’s obviously been reading too much Haaretz and not understanding a word. See what you’ve done Mr. Marmari?)

And that’s it, more or less. Except for a very hopeful summing up paragraph (I was moved almost to tears).

You can read the whole article, without my nasty remarks, here.

O.K. Imshin, you’ve had your fun
What is Dahlan actually saying here? In simultaneous translation from Palestinian double-talk, he’s saying: I’m against Arafat and in favor of reform (oh, and by the way, I forgot to mention that Gaza has been sort of, relatively, quiet-ish).
I’m your man.