Transparency in FFC’s Era (2-6)

By: Ibrahim Osman

2/ Houses
If we take the statements of some of the leaders of FFC: Zainab Al-Sadiq, Al-Nour Hamad, Muhammad Esmat, Jaafar Hassan, and Yasser Arman regarding the homes as a measure of their honesty, transparency, and representation of citizens, we will find that they were completely far from honesty, transparency, and representation of citizens, and they used deception, falsification of facts, and fallacies, and they betrayed logic. The rebellion has many services:
▪They offered him the service of accusing the aircraft (Zeinab), considering the homes as military targets (Al-Nour), accusing the army of ignoring the case (Ismat), describing those demanding its evacuation as bidders (Arman)… and accusing the army of obstructing a first stage that should have preceded the eviction of the homes, and “insinuating “To accuse the army of participating in its occupation, and to create a necessity that imposes a trade-off between evacuating it and protecting people’s lives (Jaafar)… and to ignore the Jeddah Declaration, and to legitimize the continued occupation of homes until the end of the war.
▪ It is noted that these services have covered all the rebels’ needs for help in this issue, and in return, citizens, no matter how much they express good thoughts, cannot extract from them anything that indicates, even remotely, their solidarity with them in this issue, let alone representing them and expressing their positions. To cover up this fact, they make them believe that the purpose of the eviction conditions is to serve them in other aspects, while the truth is that the conditions relate to the FFC preoccupations of their rebellious ally, which they achieve by keeping them in the homes until the end of the war and using them for military purposes and blackmail!
▪This bias towards the rebels at the expense of citizens resulted from the impossibility of combining two pure, or even impure, solidarity with both. The issue is the type that requires a decisive choice, condemnation and solidarity – in the same issue – cannot be combined unless one of them is fake, and as there is neither has reason to believe that their solidarity with the rebels is fake, the correct conclusion is the falsity of the faint condemnation carried by some of their statements and their lack of transparency in expressing the truth of their position.
▪The important issue that escaped their attention is the issue of who represents negotiating citizens homes. All their statements not only acknowledge (implicitly) that the government negotiator is the citizen’s representative, but rather confirm this fact even more, and “accuse” it of being strict in adhering to the duty of representation!
▪The only one who was aware of this issue of representation was Mohammad Ismat, who quoted the rebels as accusing the government negotiator of not raising the issue in the negotiation rounds! But this raises questions: Who other than the likes of Mohammad Ismat could accept this false and uglier excuse than sin? Who is convinced that neglecting the issue of homes constitutes an accusation against Mohammad Esmat and the FFC group?!!
▪The rebels continued to receive messages of solidarity from FFC, and returned the same greeting, and the solidarity continued to become clearer with the passage of time, until the moment they met with the leader of the rebellion in Addis Ababa, which was a defining moment that transferred this solidarity to a new level, and finally resolved the dilemma of choice, not only between the army and the rebels and even between rebels and citizens as well, with a lack of transparency to announce this frankly.
▪The only transparency available to those whose real purpose is to support the rebels’ position on the issue of homes and mistake the army’s position is the transparency of siding with the rebels. The positions imposed by this choice will necessarily send this type of “transparency” despite the noses of those who are trying to hide it!
▪These statements have proven that the parties most keen to negotiate are the least keen to implement the negotiation and agreement that actually occurred. Rather, they are the ones who support non-implementation, even though implementation brings them closer to negotiation, and this is a compliment to the rebels at the expense of the negotiation they are counting on, and this reveals the extent of their submission to the authority of the rebels and their support for their desire to keep the homes for military purposes and extortion!
▪It proved that they were not transparent about the reason for their eagerness to negotiate. The reason for it, which is clear from these statements, and among their positions, is their keenness for the negotiation to take place in light of a military situation that they consider good for them, and sufficient to impose their conditions and achieve their political interests, not what they claim of rejection of the devastation woes, bias towards citizens, and concern for their lives and property.
▪ The rest of their positions on the various issues of war do not differ from their positions on the issue of homes in terms of the extent of their commitment to transparency, stating facts, and siding with citizens. If these are their positions on the issue that affected the largest number of citizens, then it does not make sense logically, and has not been proven in reality, for their position on the rest of the issues to be more transparent and biased toward citizens and the truth.
▪ It is noted that Jaafar Hassan, the official spokesman for FFC, was the most dishonest, non-transparent, and generous among them in serving the rebels, and in falsifying facts, bending logic, and belittling the minds of citizens, and he surpassed Arman himself!
▪ The truth is that their great effort did not make a difference in favor of the rebels, not because of their negligence, but because they were failed lawyers for a lost cause, and they lost a lot by playing the role of devil’s advocate.