It’s hard to avoid an impression that Palestinian politics is possibly beyond repair. The latest aspect of Palestinian political fragmentation and lack of strategic vision transpired when Farouk Kaddoumi, a senior PLO leader, accused President Mahmoud Abbas of playing a role in Yasser Arafat’s death. Kaddoumi has yet to substantiate his claim with hard evidence.

It is clear at this point that there is no love lost between Abbas and Kaddoumi and the latter instinctively knows that he is not going to gain a thing from this manoeuvre. Indeed, Kaddoumi has been on an emotional roller coaster that has only contributed to tarnishing Fateh’s image.

While I am not in a position to argue for or against this kind of accusation for lack of investigation, I am not convinced with the motives behind Kaddoumi’s timing of revealing for what he claims is crystal clear evidence of Abbas’ role in Arafat’s death.

One should look at this new development in light of Kaddoumi’s political and personal positions. Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Kaddoumi has taken a path that has been different in tone and, more importantly, in implication. For this reason, Arafat kept him out of the loop for many years. Nevertheless, despite his self-entitlement to be the foreign minister of the PLO, he has not been involved in foreign policy making and has been kept out of the limelight for more than 10 years.

The internal bickering among Fateh members reached a new peak with Kaddoumi’s allegation of the existence of an Israeli agreement with Abbas to put an end to Arafat’s life. The timing of revealing a five-year-old document is certainly linked to the upcoming Fateh conference to be held in the West Bank where Kaddoumi is expected to lose his senior position to a younger generation who are fed up with the old guards of the PLO that have failed to deliver at various levels, chief among them organisationally.

On the other hand, a furious Abbas will not do himself any good by only refuting Kaddoumi’s statements. It is not enough to discredit Kaddoumi; few people will take the old man (Kaddoumi) seriously anyway. Yet, Abbas is required to unify Fateh under his leadership. Abbas’ relegation of the necessity to unify his movement, under the pretext that he is above faction politics, is lacking wisdom. This attitude has created suspicion as to whether or not Abbas can fit the bill of leadership. It is not surprising that he is challenged not only by Hamas but from within his shattered Fateh movement.

It seems to be natural for Hamas leaders, who have been doing what it takes to undermine Abbas’ presidency, to not waste this God-given gift to mount a new political attack against him. They will surely make the most of this new development within the Fateh movement further underscoring its relevance in the Palestinian fight for liberation.

Much more troubling is that fact that if Kaddoumi’s statements create momentum within Palestinian politics, Abbas will be further emasculated and undercut at two fronts. First, he would feel weaker in dealing with Hamas who will put new demands as a precondition for reconciliation. Second, Abbas might turn to the West or Israel to support him, a move that already has taken a huge toll on his credibility.

Ironically, the loser in this battle is none other than the Palestinian people who are plagued with various political factions that put parochial factional interests before the interest of the nation. Instead of demonstrating leadership in the face of Israel’s expansionist policy, Palestinian leaders are consumed with internal bickering without balancing that with any clearly agreed upon strategy for liberation. This, in my opinion, is a historical predicament that has deprived Palestinian leaders from rising above their differences for the sake of their people.

Nonetheless, a word of caution is in order. I remember when President Arafat returned from the Camp David summit in July 2000 as a hero for digging in his heels and rejecting the American and Israeli pressure to forego the Palestinian right to Jerusalem and the right of return. Therefore, Arafat should only be invoked to help the Palestinians get their act together and confront the evasiveness of the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s procrastinating tactics. However, choosing to evoke Arafat to settle accounts among senior members of Fateh is, to say the least, pathetic! Israel, on the other hand, stands to gain from this negative dynamic in Palestinian politics.