I have not supported, nor will I today, any Palestinian faction against another. I assert, however, that I only support Palestine itself, that is, very much unlike those self-styled smart, honest, pious leaders who claim to represent it. Nonetheless, this does not mean that my opinion on this or that subject is the only true one, but rather, it means that I don't base my views on narrow and constrained partisan commitment, and that on the contrary, I try to be fair to everyone. For instance, Abu-Lutf's claims about a conspiracy involving Abu-Mazen's participation to assassinate Abu-Ammar stirred a storm of controversy that has yet to settle. While I did not even tackle the subject in a full dedicated column, and only wrote down a quick and brief comment on the matter, there was a storm against me as well. In my defense, my information about the subject came from sources personally involved in this matter, and I have the following information to divulge: During the Fatah meetings in Amman last June, Sa'id Khouri, Mohsen Ibrahim, and Bassel ‘Akel, who are not Fatah members by the way, conducted marathon mediations between Fatah's leaders, in a bid to bridge the gap between them. In a meeting which Abou-Maher attended, they all heard Abu-Lutf pledging not to say a word when Fatah holds its conference in Bethlehem. Abu-Lutf is the secretary general of the central committee in Fatah, which strongly sought in the Amman meetings for the decision to hold the general conference in Bethlehem to be unanimous. As such, this was achieved when the central committee was able to get the support and approval of Fatah's revolutionary council. In my opinion, Mr Faruq Qaddumi probably preferred the conference to be held in Egypt or Jordan. These two countries, however, did not welcome the conference on their territories because they probably wanted to distance themselves from the inter-Palestinian disagreements, whether between different factions or within the same faction. In all cases, logic says that Bethlehem is the most sensible choice for the conference's venue, since there are about 1550 participants from Fatah along with the conference monitors, and the costs of travelling abroad for them would be massive. But Abu-Lutf, it seems, does not want to go to Bethlehem, or can't, and had left the meetings in Jordan with nothing to show for. He then dropped his bomb and claimed that he has a transcription in which a conspiracy involving Ariel Sharon, Mahmoud Abbas, Mohammad Dahlan and Shaul Mofaz to assassinate Abu-Ammar is revealed and all of this with the participation of an American envoy as well. Abu-Lutf made these claims about the content of the transcription without presenting the document itself, and personally, I would not believe the transcription even I saw it with my own eyes. It must have been forged, because no one would have a transcription that records their own plans for murder. Also, there are some other points that are difficult, if not impossible, to accept and believe: If the conspiracy dates back to 2004, and if Abou Ammar had given Abu-Lutf the transcript of the meeting, then why did the latter remain silent up until now? Don't readers find that the timing of its revelation is suspicious given that the upcoming Fatah conference will be held on the 8th of August, which is the date on which Yasser Arafat was born? Is it possible that Abu Ammar possessed this document then gave it to Abu-Lutf instead of making it public himself and instead of demanding that those conspirators be held accountable? He apparently knew the details about the conspiracy to take his life – as it is being claimed – and decided not to bother himself to dismiss the conspirators from their official positions in the government nor to subsequently send them to trial. How does Abu-Lutf explain that while he had this transcript all along, he was the first to support the candidacy of Abu Mazen to succeed Abu Ammar following the latter's death near the end of 2005? How does he also explain having the transcript up his sleeve, when the press quoted him a month or so ago saying “while we might differ with Abu-Mazen, we do not differ about him”. Meanwhile, it seems that Mohammad Ghneim (Abu-Maher), the second man in Fatah who is also a member in the central committee and the man responsible for mobilization and organization, was also displeased – like me – by Abu Lutf's position. As I understood, Abu Maher has decided to return to the Palestinian territories and settle there after he attends Fatah's conference. I want to say to Mr. Qaddumi and those readers who believed his accusations “Allow me to say otherwise”. Of course, most of those who believed him or pretended to believe him were more Abu-Mazen detractors than they were the supporters of Abu-Lutf, that is, they had a predilection to the transcript in question. In all cases, if I had one iota of doubt about Mahmoud Abbas, I wouldn't have written a single word in his defense, especially that the subject concerns Abu Ammar. The latter has met his maker, and since I have never betrayed him when he was alive, despite having a thousand reservations against him, I will not betray him now that he is dead. Nevertheless, and in the clearest possible terms, I want to say that Abu-Mazen does not murder. Nor does he conspire, and the claims by his Palestinian opponents that he is “weak” go beyond the fact that he is a straightforward man who does not play the games of politics very well. As for the Israeli claims about his weakness, these are aimed at inciting a Palestinian civil war in which Abu-Mazen can prove his “strength”. However, this will never happen, because Abu Mazen, and despite his alleged weakness, did not compromise in anything, nor did he forfeit anything, and only did the right thing: whether by placing the condition that settlements be ceased prior to negotiations, or his stances in what concerns Jerusalem, the refugees, and the borders. Should he ever one day compromise, God forbid, I will be the first to attack him. Meanwhile, I wish that Abu-Lutf who spent his life serving the Palestinian cause had left honorably like he had entered, instead of exacerbating the Palestinian rifts with an unbelievable story.
