“Legitimizing ETA was Zapatero’s greatest betrayal.”

– What prompted you to write this book and how do you describe the current role of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in Spanish politics?

– I was motivated by the need to tell the story of those years. In a time of historical memory where history is falsified, it seemed to me that the truth of events should be told and the background of the political situation we are living in at this moment revealed. Zapatero was the one who designed the strategy of dividing the Spanish. This also led to the delegitimization of the transitional process and one of its heroes, the Spanish right. I wanted to tell the truth and highlight the steps Zapatero took during his time as Prime Minister. There are things that are abhorrent today, such as scarification or institutional intrusion, that were instituted under Zapatero. At that moment, there was also talk of the far right and the consensus about the transition period was broken, because Zapatero was promoting hatred and division among Spaniards. From that dust we reached these muds to the present day. Zapatero dug the trench and Sanchez raised the wall. After losing the election, Sanchez made a pact with traditional enemies in Spain, from terrorists to coup plotters, and announced that he would build a wall between the Spaniards. For Zapatero first, and for Sánchez later, progressivism meant being of their own division, as they marginalized half of the Spaniards.

Do you consider that the law of historical memory was the starting point for the current climate of polarization?

– The Law of Historical Memory was a tool launched by Zapatero to obtain another argument to exclude the Popular Party from the democratic consensus. It was not created to solve injustices or address the problems of those who were persecuted during the post-war period, but to exclude the People’s Party from the democratic consensus and so that they could be described as fascists and fascists. I say in the book that when the Popular Party tried to negotiate an amendment that the Socialist Party had promoted, the Socialist Workers Party withdrew the text because what they wanted was for the Socialist Party to vote against it.

– In your opinion, what is the biggest political mistake committed by Zapatero during his reign?

– We cannot fault the strategic decision made by the Socialist Party and Zapatero to legitimize ETA and turn it into a political interlocutor. All previous governments had negotiated with ETA to stop the killing. Of course, they did not negotiate with them on the usual political issues of democratic parties. The ultimate betrayal was to rescue Etta when she finished, turning her into a political interlocutor. In other words, legitimizing ETA was Zapatero’s greatest betrayal. From there everything else is venial sins. There is no greater corruption than legitimizing a terrorist organization and making it an accomplice. Zapatero succeeded in replacing the defeat of Eta, which all Democrats were seeking, with a negotiated end to the violence. When a democratic government talks about ending violence by negotiating with a terrorist organization, it is saying that there was violence and that it was equally bad on both sides: legitimate state violence and terrorist violence.

– How do you define the relationship between Zapatero and Pedro Sanchez? Is it a relationship of dependency or ideological continuity?

-It is not an ideological continuity. Here everything is called the left, the heirs of ETA and the coup plotters. Zapatero was the original cancer, and Sanchez was the metastasis. If Zapatero had not designed the strategy of rift and hatred among the Spaniards, the rules of the Socialist Party would not have been so sectarian, and it would not have been possible for someone like Sánchez, whose primary goal is power for the sake of power and whose rhetoric is based on hatred towards half of the Spaniards, it would not have been possible to win the primaries, despite his cheating or anything else. Zapatero was the original cancer and was not fought through politics or democratic institutions. Rajoy won the election with an absolute majority, and did not spend all that time undoing and fighting everything Zapatero had done. Finally he dealt with the economy. Sanchez came to power because the road was already paved. For many years, since he was in the opposition, Zapatero had been poisoning society and had managed to make the Socialist Party hate the Popular Party, which was the party capable of winning the elections, more than ETA. It’s difficult, but that’s the way it is.

– How do you explain Sanchez’s diplomatic shift regarding Western Sahara and support for the Palestinian cause?

– It is not actually the Palestinian issue. Sanchez cares about the Palestinians as much as he cares about the Sahrawis, that is, nothing. It has once again divided Spaniards over issues such as the anti-Israel protests that took place at the Vuelta Ciclista a España. The Palestinian issue is another tool for division. To cover up his shame, he uses tools to divide society, and this allows him to remain in power. The Sahara issue has no other explanation than that it owes something to the King of Morocco. If she prefers Morocco, something has to be covered.

He pointed out that the Socialist Workers Party is “dead” and that it needs to spend years in opposition. Do you think that renewing the party is possible under its current abbreviated name?

– The Socialist Workers Party is dead, and I do not believe that the dead man will rise from the dead. There is no Socialist Workers Party other than the party of Sánchez and Zapatero, the man in the shadows behind all this. I do not know whether there will be another democratic party that regains the initials of the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP has to spend a lot of time in opposition and maybe something will happen after that. The Socialist Party led by Sánchez and Zapatero is hell-bent on destroying the best of democracy in Spain. Whoever does not join the sect is an enemy and fights.

—As one of the founders of UPyD, do you think a ceremony like this would be necessary right now?

— We created UPyD to defend the state and democratic institutions. The Socialist Party had become an enemy, and in our opinion the Popular Party was not fighting the battle. At that time there was no one to defend the institutions. We have been fighting the battle for eight years. Citizens did not trust us after that period. I don’t know if we would need a party today that appeals to the center. In Spain, the center must agree with each other without caring about abbreviations. UPyD had that spirit. It was a time of great international pacts that allowed for a constitution, accession to the European Union and many other things, until Zapatero broke this consensus and restored Largo Caballero’s civil war.