Up until now, the Muslim Brotherhood presidency in Egypt has been pursuing the worst possible policy when it comes to the Palestinians. Cairo has made no effort in the peace process, nor have they assigned their intelligence agency — or any other agency — to work on this issue.

Despite the good intentions of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — or rather his moral obligation toward Cairo — when Iran requested that Tehran be in charge of the peace process and then announced that Cairo would be in charge of it, Cairo did not respond with even a single word on the matter.

Regionally, it seems that Brotherhood-led Cairo is following a policy close to that of Qatar, as Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has given special attention to the Syrian crisis. He has even offered a carrot to Tehran in the form of an agreement to establish diplomatic relations with Iran if it agreed to abandon its support for the Assad regime.

In contrast, Cairo has shown a declining interest in the Palestinian cause, including Palestine's battle at the United Nations. Ever since Abbas went to the UN, it seems that Cairo has been backing down on its position over the past year. Its stance greatly resembles that of the Hamas movement, which, if not completely opposed to Abbas' efforts at the UN, does not care about them at all, considering this issue something completely unrelated to them.

Cairo has only added insult to injury by feeding Hamas and Gaza's illusions with talk of opening the border crossing [between the Gaza Strip and Sinai] and lifting the siege, outside of the context of the peace process.

Moreover, this talk has not taken into consideration Israeli obligations, despite the fact that they are the party that imposes the air and water siege. Furthermore, Cairo has not included other involved Palestinian parties, making it seem as though this is merely a dispute between Egypt and “Hamas’ Gaza.”

It appears as if Cairo is only working to respond to Hamas' limitless aspirations, which include converting Rafah into a free-trade zone in order to enrich the business interests of the movement's leaders. This brings the peace process — which is a moral obligation for Cairo — to a standstill, and freezes all efforts that have been made regarding it.

Many observers claim that the internal political situation in Palestine — which is a result of the policies of this Brotherhood-led Cairo — has caused the crisis in relations between Cairo and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Furthermore, we could say this domestic situation has even opened the door to competition among leaders within the Hamas movement itself. These leaders have rushed to visit the Egyptian capital, with Mousa Abu Marzook staying in Cairo for a year, and Khaled Meshaal visiting briefly.

Some Hamas leaders even came to Cairo just to meet with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. However, despite these visits, the most important meetings are those taking place between Egyptian officials and the "cause of Palestinian fragmentation," deposed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

Haniyeh’s meetings with the Egyptian president and prime minister have included clear political signals with dangerous implications, showing that Haniyeh is a figure who represents an independent entity.

At present, Qatar is one of the most influential Arab voices. Given this fact, Palestine’s going to the UN alone — particularly in the context of a huge financial crisis — confirms that Doha is putting financial pressure on Cairo. They are trying to dissuade Abbas from going to the UN. Cairo backing down from its usual role of support is suffocating Palestinian efforts.

It is clear that President Abbas — given his experience and political wisdom — is aware of these political changes. Furthermore, he is directly affected by them on a daily basis. It is likely that he views his battle with the UN as his last available move — one he must take before the region descends into Washington-led fragmentation like Iraq, Syria, Libya and even Yemen.

He must also make his move before allies of Doha and Washington push things to the point that the Brotherhood gains control of Jordan and Hamas comes to power in the West Bank. This situation would force the Palestinian issue to the regional negotiating table.

Such a regional solution would include the complete separation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and not necessarily affording the two regions equal status. It would also lack the stipulation that Israel withdraw to the pre-Six Day War borders, especially in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

This this is Abbas' last chance and his last available move. If he is successful in achieving his goal of non-member state status — or a Palestine whose territories are occupied according to 1967 borders — then he will shackle the hands of a Brotherhood/Hamas leadership alliance, along with the Brotherhood in Cairo and Jordan, and perhaps the Brotherhood in a post-Assad Syria.

This is particularly true given that this leadership developing on the horizon is in alliance with Washington, and follows intellectual principles that differ from those of that national Palestinian program.

This explains what has been reported by a number of media outlets, which claimed that Abbas intends to step down from his post as president of the PA after he returns from New York having achieved his goals at the UN into by transforming the Palestinian state into a reality and a national struggle. This is in order to block meaningless negotiations that will take place after the current authorities lose their position as leaders of the national struggle.

If President Abbas succeeds in implementing this step, he will be inscribed in the national history books. However, the coming few days will entail many dangers.

Anything is possible when confronting this political alliance invading the region. This alliance is not giving itself time to catch its breath, or aligning itself in the interests of its own people.

However, the main question here is: Does this political realignment mean pushing the Palestinian cause — including aspirations of national independence and a unified state — to the margins, in order to deal with it quietly and away from people's prying eyes?

Or, rather, does it signal that the Palestinian people have succeeded in coming together and have turned the tables on this far-reaching regional effort?

The answer to this question requires a leadership next to that of Abbas, a leadership that is derived from the people and is capable of a long and patient struggle.