Whatever Abu Ubaida said, that's it...

Before the presidential inauguration ceremony to be held in the United States on January 20, the speech given by outgoing President Joe Biden on his last day was followed with great interest all over the world. Biden was giving his own account of his four-year term and trying to explain that the United States had advanced further in many areas during this time.

Only three days before the day his term would end, he was telling a story that credited the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Hamas to his record of achievements. Those following the broadcast on Al Jazeera TV witnessed the transmission suddenly being cut and being connected to the statement of Abu Ubaida, who had made his awaited announcement on the same process. Was it necessary to cut a live broadcast considered of first-rate importance by all news channels in order to connect to Abu Ubaida's already pre-recorded statement? I don't know, but this move itself was regarded by those following the events as a very classy one.

Throughout the entire speech of the US President, everything he said, especially about the Middle East, was either a lie, or the part that was not a lie was not important enough to deserve dwelling on. For a full 471 days he was content to stand by as a spectator to the genocide that Zionist Israel inflicted on the people of Gaza, and even went further and continued to give unlimited support. Everyone knows that a US president has the power and the means to stop all these crimes. In fact, with the ultimatum Trump issued even before taking office, he not only showed this power of the United States, but thereby also exposed the US contribution to these crimes against humanity that have been committed.

In contrast to Biden's speech, Abu Ubaida's speech was one that the whole world followed with interest from the beginning, one as consistent within itself as could be, one that soothed the hearts of the oppressed, and one that even enemies followed with interest and curiosity. Earlier, even in the Israeli press, there had been reports that, rather than Netanyahu's statements about developments on the ground in Gaza, most of which were known to be lies, following Abu Ubaida's statements was far more enlightening. Indeed, whatever Netanyahu has said about what has happened in Gaza since October 7, the opposite occurred. In contrast, whatever Abu Ubaida said, that is what happened.

Thus one of the greatest gains of the Al-Aqsa Flood over the course of the process is the credibility it secured in matters of information and the deep blow it dealt to the enemy ranks. No one trusts or believes what either Israel or the United States says about Palestine anymore. Zionism, which for years has been building its own fabricated narratives in media, literature, politics and the film industry, has suffered a complete rout against Hamas, and especially against Abu Ubaida.

Israel can no longer make even its own people listen to Netanyahu's lies; it tries to get the news from Abu Ubaida. It knows that Netanyahu and the other Israeli officials lie to their own people, even to themselves. Abu Ubaida, on the other hand, has never lied so far, and at the end of the day, each time, whatever he said is what happened. He never concealed even the possibility that the Palestinian people might suffer many losses in the war, but at the end of each speech he said that their struggle is a jihad anyway and that both victory and martyrdom are included in it.

As for the content of Abu Ubaida's speech: it was a complete manifesto of victory, containing first of all praise and thanks to God, who granted this victory, who never goes back on His promise, and who never holds back from fulfilling His glad tidings to those who are patient. Then he recited the relevant verses of Surat al-Isra that recount the historical and doctrinal roots of the Zionist beliefs of the power they are facing. The occupation draws on a theological reference which it interprets by distorting its sources and shaping them to suit itself. But standing against it cannot be done without relying on a Scriptural reference too.

Indeed, just as Abu Ubaida said: "While the people of Gaza directed their operations only at the armed occupation forces, they, with all their immorality, applied new methods of savagery and genocide against the people. In return, October 7 came about as a date and a movement that drove the last nail into the coffin of the occupation."

Abu Ubaida's assessments about the Al-Aqsa Flood go beyond simple propaganda; they are assessments that anyone with eyes can accept. For example, these:

"The Al-Aqsa Flood began on the outskirts of Gaza but changed the face of the entire region and produced new equations in the conflict with the occupation.

The Al-Aqsa Flood Operation caused new war fronts to open and forced the occupation to seek help from international powers to support itself. The Al-Aqsa Flood Operation showed the world that the occupation is a great balloon.

The Al-Aqsa Flood exposed the occupier as a savage criminal entity and showed its leaders and soldiers to be war criminals who must be brought to justice. The Al-Aqsa Flood showed that the enemy's continued occupation of our lands will affect the entire region and the world."

These assessments are the clear words, from a trustworthy and heroic mouth, of how the Al-Aqsa Flood must be regarded as an indisputable victory. Every sentence and every word of the speech, a magnificent account of victory from beginning to end, seems carefully measured and weighed. Those who rejoice in the victory followed it with great joy and excitement, while those who were defeated undoubtedly listened to it with endless disappointment; and one of the most striking parts of the speech, in my view, is what they said about their martyrs. They gave many martyrs and their country was ruined, but until the last minute, together with all their members, seeking no hierarchical privilege, they fought in the front line to the last drop of their blood. Indeed, in Abu Ubaida's far more striking words: "The greatness of this jihad is plainly seen in the march to martyrdom of the convoys of martyrs, headed by its leaders Ismail Haniyeh, Saleh al-Arouri and Yahya Sinwar."

There are wars or struggles in which the death of the leader is identified with defeat. In this war, on the contrary, the leader's death inflamed the movement further and revived it further. And especially in Yahya Sinwar's being a martyr, with his death he was resurrected a thousand times and became a heroic icon unparalleled not only for the people of Gaza but for all future freedom struggles. Indeed, not only did his martyrdom not set the Al-Aqsa Flood back by an inch, but everything turned out exactly as Abu Ubaida, the movement's spokesman, had said from the very beginning.

On the contrary, the manner of his death showed that this movement is a blessed cause in which no one works for his own interest, no one is after worldly gain, and no one drives people to death for the sake of worldly gains in a cause he does not believe in. If this is a concern he loved to death, a cause he was in love with, and if martyrdom is the highest rank that can be attained on this path, then is it not a magnificent sign of sincerity that the leader showed this first?