Will the fate of Abu Mazen be the same as that of Abu Ammar?

The Zionist entity incites Washington and the West against President Abu Mazen, accusing him of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and incitement to violence, after thirty years of partnership in a political settlement process under the title (Oslo Accords), which the president was the architect of and is still defending, even though it was not mentioned in the president’s speech before the council. Revolutionary or in any of his speeches, including Germany’s speech, there is evidence of this, and everything that the president mentioned are historical facts about the nature of the Jews and their relationship with the societies in which they lived, documented in all languages. Indeed, the entity state is the one that practices racism and terrorism, and the Jewish and Zionist doctrine is full of vocabulary. Racism, hatred of Gentiles, and incitement to kill them.

 Why does a right-wing racist government behave this way?

Although, in our opinion, it was not necessary for the president to address the Jewish issue in a conference dedicated to discussing the conditions of the Fatah movement and the great challenges facing the national issue, so that Israel would not exploit the matter and divert attention from its crimes and terrorism, and for him to abandon talking and writing about this important topic that exposes the falsity of all narratives and history. The alleged Jew of intellectuals, writers, Palestinian research centers, and the president’s advisors and those around him. However, since the issue has been opened, it is required of every Palestinian patriot to stand by the president in the face of the campaign of Zionist lies, which unfortunately has been accompanied by Western governments that know that President Abu Mazen speaks facts, but they Countries that do not want anyone to talk about their historical role in the tragedy of the Jews, even before the emergence of Nazism.

What worries Israel, arouses its anger, and pushes it to antagonize the president is the opposite of what it claims. What worries the entity state is the president’s insistence on peace, renunciation of violence, and his adherence to international legitimacy and its decisions. It is true that only emphasizing the discourse of international legitimacy and calling for peace will not restore our legitimate rights to us, but this discourse exposes racism. Israel and its hostility to peace and international legitimacy, a speech that began to influence global public opinion, which began to discover the truth about this entity and demanded its boycott.

What is happening with Abu Mazen happened with President Abu Ammar when Israel accused him of terrorism and incitement to violence, so it stormed the West Bank, besieged the president in the district, and then killed him with poison.

It is true that Abu Ammar wanted to combine diplomatic work with the armed resistance, but the entity state killed him not only because of his return to armed work, but also because of his insistence on peace, the political settlement, and the implementation of international legitimacy resolutions and the Oslo Accords. Zionism rejects all of that completely and in detail, and it is the one that assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, the most important leader. A Zionist politician and military man because he signed the Oslo Accords and searched for a formula for peace with the Palestinians, even if it was a maneuver imposed by American pressure.

What threatens and terrifies the Zionist entity is not only the Palestinian military action, despite its Palestinian importance if it is part of a comprehensive national strategy to preserve the vitality of the issue and keep the enemy in a state of tension and instability, nor the axis of resistance and the alleged Iranian nuclear program, but the exposure of the falsity of the Zionist narrative and the spread of the Palestinian narrative through... The world, exposing the terrorist and racist practices of a country that claims to be the oasis of democracy in the Middle East, and emphasizing a just peace that restores the Palestinians’ rights.

For the Jews, especially the Zionists and the extreme right, a good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian, while a living Palestinian is an enemy, whether he is a fighter, a mujahideen, or a pacifist. National, secular, or Islamic, as Israel assassinated leaders and members of all political orientations, all of them were Palestinian enemies to it, from Abu Youssef al-Najjar, Kamal Adwan, Abu Jihad, and Abu Ammar to Ghassan Kanafani, Abu Ali Mustafa, al-Shaqaqi, al-Rantisi, Siam, Sheikh Yassin, Abu al-Atta, etc.

Therefore, despite the differences between leader Abu Ammar and President Abu Mazen and the apparent difference between the Arafati approach and the Abbasid approach in dealing with the political settlement process, it is not unlikely that the fate of Abu Mazen will be the same as the fate of Abu Ammar, but in a different way. It will be a political liquidation, not a physical one.

Because the culture of suspicion and lack of trust in the political class is widespread in society, some may claim that the president’s aim was to include the Jewish issue in his speech to appear as a national hero and draw attention away from the criticisms directed at him, the authority, its approach, etc.

If we go back a little to the past, we will find the same approach of skepticism, and even accusations of treason and negligence, were directed at Commander Abu Ammar even while he was besieged in the district, and by almost the same parties that are now suspicious of President Mahmoud Abbas. Those who doubted Abu Ammar did not change their minds until after Israel assassinated him, so they were at the head of the They walked at his funeral and to this day they still commemorate his memory, perhaps because they were not able to do more for the national cause than Al-Ikhtiyar did, may God have mercy on him!