Sisay Muluย
โฃ
Having a common adversary doesn’t guarantee a unified political future. Any FanoโTPLFโOLF alliance should be evaluated based on its implications for the Amhara cause, rather than on propaganda, pressure, or blind allegiance. โฃ
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐
๐๐ง๐จโ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ง๐๐โฃ
โฃ
The TPLF and OLF have decades of organizational maturity and a proven record of genocidal hostility toward Amhara interests. Their records raise significant concerns regarding the durability of alliances. Such imbalances may influence Fanoโs agenda, messaging, negotiations, intelligence, and long-term strategy. ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ง๐๐ฒ.
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐๐๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ-๐ฌ๐๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐โฃ
โฃ
Welkait, Tegede, Telemt, Raya, Shoa, Wollega, and other sensitive regions should not be treated as negotiable assets or deferred issues, particularly within an alliance involving groups that pose direct security threats to many Amhara communities. Amharas in these areas have every right to fear that their security, identity, and future could be sacrificed for temporary military convenience.
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐
๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒโฃ
โฃ
Such an alliance has the potential to fragment Fano commands, local communities, victimsโ families, diaspora organizations, and advocates into opposing factions. The costs of internal division outweigh any potential benefits derived from external alliances. โฃ
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ง ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญโฃ
โฃ
An alliance lacking transparency, consultation, acknowledgment of historical grievances, and accountability may alienate the communities that Fano seeks to represent. Military strength without public trust is inherently unstable. โฃ
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐โฃ
โฃ
Labeling critics as cowardly, divisive, traitorous, or as supporters of Prosperity regime does not address their substantive concerns. Such responses transform legitimate strategic questions into loyalty tests and foster divisiveness within the Amhara community. โฃ
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐๐๐ง๐ข๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐โฃ
โฃ
Prosperity and other actors may exploit this controversy to undermine Amhara cohesion. Additionally, external observers may misinterpret Fanoโs objectives or dismiss legitimate Amhara grievances as mere factional disputes, rather than recognizing them as responses to structural threats to Amhara security and rights. โฃ
โฃ
๐/๐: ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐โฃ
โฃ
The most significant risk is that immediate military expediency may supersede the broader objectives of independent Amhara representation, security, dignity, territorial justice, and collective rights. โฃ
โฃ
The central issue is not whether Fano should engage in tactical communication or coordination with other groups. Rather, the primary consideration is whether any such relationship enhances or undermines the long-term political independence, security, and unity of the Amhara people.
Sisay( Amoraw) @amorawwub, ย on X
