Arafat Refused to Credit Syria for Palestinian Resistance’s ‘Victory’ against 1982 Israeli Invasion of Beirut

The summer of 1982 was turbulent in Beirut and for the Palestinian resistance. Besieged by Israeli forces, the Palestinian resistance in the Lebanese capital realized that it had no other choice than to leave the city.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat realized that the time had come and he decided to leave by sea, refusing to take the Beirut-Damascus route. Four decades later, the Palestinians are still fighting for their cause to establish their own independent state. The Lebanese, meanwhile, have failed in forming their own state in spite of their success in liberating their territories from Israeli occupation.

Asharq Al-Awsat concludes on Friday a series of features highlighting the significant developments and recollections of influential players during that heated summer.

Shafik al-Wazzan

Lebanese former Prime Minister Shafik al-Wazzan believed that the Palestinian leadership knew that its time in Beirut was up from the very moment Israel besieged the city. The leadership sought to use the time it had left to make diplomatic and political gains.

The reality was that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) could not carry on the battle forever, recalled Wazzan.

Weeks after the invasion, it became apparent that the Soviet Union was not prepared to take any dramatic move. The United Nations Security Council’s hands were tied. Only the United States could pressure Israel to end the invasion.

Of course, Israel had its own conditions that needed to be met before making any move.

No one could take the decision to completely destroy Beirut and bringing an end to the Palestinian leadership would have dire consequences on the entire Palestinian cause, said Wazzan.

On July 3, Wazzan informed US envoy Philipe Habib that the PLO had agreed to pull out its forces. Habib asked him if the Palestinians had signed a document to confirm their withdrawal. Wazzan said it had not occurred to him to request a signed document. Habib stressed that the Israelis would want written proof of their vow.

Wazzan relayed the envoy’s message to the Palestinians, who “received quite the shock by it.” He explained that the Palestinian leadership was trying to avoid submitting any written vow.

He recalled an ensuing heated meeting that was held between him, former PMs Saeb Salam and Takieddin al-Solh and Arafat at Salam’s residence. Wazzan said Arafat addressed the Lebanese people, especially the residents of Beirut, as if they had abandoned the resistance.

Salam was outraged by his remarks, saying: “You’re saying this after everything Beirut has done for you? You’re saying this after everything Lebanon has offered? Haven’t you seen the destruction in the country? Do want Beirut to be completely destroyed and for its people to be displaced?”

During the meeting, Solh asked the Palestinian leadership: “Are there any weapons you haven’t yet used in this war? If so, then we will stand by you and make sacrifices for you. Have any countries pledged to join the war, fight by your side and secure your victory? If so, then we will stand by you.”

“If you don’t have these weapons and that vow, then have mercy on Beirut, which is being destroyed in spite of everything that it has given and continues to give,” he told Arafat.

In the end, the Palestinians agreed to quit the city. Wazzan said the decision pained him as “we had supported the Palestinian resistance and stood by its side to an extent that we sometimes ignored its mistakes and neglected the Lebanese.”

Saeb Salam

When Israel invaded Lebanon, the Lebanese cabinet decided to place all capabilities at the army’s disposal. There were concerns, however, that it would be crushed by the invading military and the country would be left divided as a result, especially with various rival militias on the ground.

Wazzan wanted to resign when the Israeli army surrounded Beirut, but Salam warned that the country would not be able to tolerate more division and paralysis in the state. He offered Wazzan his complete support and persuaded him against resigning.

Salam’s position was hailed by his rivals, including Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party Mohsen Ibrahim and Secretary General of the Communist Action Organization in Lebanon George Hawi.

Salam recalled those days when Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to destroy Beirut along with the Palestinians and Lebanese people. He said: “My sole concern was for the resistance to be safe and for our country to be safe.”

“Some have said that ‘he forced our withdrawal to save his country’,” he added. “This is not true. They left with their weapons, while raising the victory sign. I saw them off at the port and they went abroad to continue to fight for their cause. Sharon’s attack was destructive. Looking out from my house, I could see flames from all sides.”

“I clashed several times with Abou Ammar [Arafat]. And yet, when the time came for him to leave, he dropped by to bid me farewell and express his gratitude,” added Salam.

George Hawi

Hawi recalled three positions that were prevalent and shared by the Palestinians and Lebanese leadership when the Israeli army invaded Beirut and hammered it with shelling.

The first believed that there was no point in continuing the fight and everything should be done to rescue whatever could be salvaged.

The second was a more romanticized view that spoke of transforming Beirut into a new Stalingrad. Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) George Habash shared this view and so did Hawi during the first month of the invasion.

The third was more realistic and realized that the fighting should aim to improve the conditions of a political solution. This position was reinforced when it appeared that the international community had no hope in stopping the Israeli war machine, said Hawi.

He denied that he, along with Mohsen, led to the prolongation of the war because they were awaiting the Soviet position. “In the beginning, Mohsen adopted a hard line just as we did. He later adopted a more realistic approach,” Hawi added. “The truth is Arafat was the most pragmatic of us all.”

When asked who he believed opposed the withdrawal from Beirut, he replied: “No one really. Not the Palestinians or the Lebanese.”

Ahmed Jibril

Secretary General of the PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmed Jibril’s account of events doesn’t align with others. One time when I was in Damascus, I asked him about his version of events of that summer of 1982.

When he sensed that the Palestinians were in agreement over withdrawing from Beirut, Arafat called for a meeting of Lebanese leaders, including Walid Jumblatt, AMAL movement leader Nabih Berri, Ibrahim Koleilat, Mohsen Ibrahim, Abdulrahim Murad and Toufic Sultan.

Arafat revealed that he had received an offer to pull out from Beirut, but said he could not give an answer before first consulting with Palestinian and Lebanese officials. At the meeting, Ibrahim, Koleilat and Murad said: “We gave you the whole of Lebanon, so give us Beirut.” Jumblatt chose not to say anything negative or positive.

Berri appeared to support the withdrawal, while others noted that the Palestinians chose not fight Israel from southern Lebanon, so why were they opting to fight from Beirut? The meeting was very tense and like a stab in the back, said Jibril.

My questions rekindled the hatred between Arafat and Jibril. “Arafat chose to quit Beirut, but he was searching for an excuse to avoid leaving through Syria. (...) Along with George Habash and Nayef Hawatima, we sent a message to then Syrian Foreign Minister Abdul Halim Khaddam. After 24 hours, we received a reply through a cable,” recalled Jibril.

He explained that members of the Baath had met with President Hafez al-Assad and agreed to receive more Palestinians. “I read out the message to Arafat, who replied: ‘I do not work through cables. The Syrian government must release a formal statement about the matter.’”

“We clashed. I told Arafat: ‘It’s been three months, and you haven’t missed an opportunity to criticize Syria, directly or indirectly. Syria is waging a battle with us. It has dispatched 90 jets and thousands of tanks, armored vehicles and soldiers, while you make contact with various Arab countries. Do you want to clash with Syria?’ The meeting became strained and quickly came to an end.”

Jibril again contacted Damascus and hours later Syrian state radio announced its agreement to host the Palestinians. He met with Arafat to relay the message. The Palestinian leader said: “Do you think I will credit our resistance for three months and victory in Beirut to the Syrian leadership?”

A year later, Arafat would return to Tripoli to provoke Syria. “We surrounded him, but he eventually left. Then Syrian chief-of-staff Hikmat al-Shehabi would later tell me, I wish you had finished him off there and relieved everyone of him,” said Jibril.

The hatred went farther than that. Jibril later told me he hoped Arafat would have been assassinated by a Palestinian, the same way Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat was killed by Egyptian extremist Khalid Islambouli. I asked him if he had ever sent someone to kill Arafat, he replied: “I am certain a Palestinian Khalid Islambouli will eventually rear his head.”

George Habash

Meeting with Habash in Damascus, he told me how the majority of the Palestinian leaders, including himself, supported the withdrawal from Beirut. The decision became the best option after Israel tightened its siege and it became necessary to take into account the suffering of the Lebanese people.

“Of course, I chose to head to Damascus because I knew I could continue the armed struggle there, rebuild the military capabilities and take part in the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon,” he said.

“I was focused on the political compromise Arafat would have to make after leaving Beirut. He told us bluntly that we had no choice but to accept the American initiatives to resolve the Palestinian cause because the fight against Israel according to his [Arafat’s] rules was no longer possible after the loss of the Lebanese arena,” he added.

Salah Khalaf

I once met prominent Palestinian leader Salah Khalaf in Tunisia. He was forlorn and told me that the decision to leave Beirut was dictated by several military, political and humanitarian factors.

The Palestinian resistance was not fighting on its own land, he recalled. It had to take into account the needs of the locals and their fears. Moreover, no one truly believed that the Security Council and Soviet Union could deter Israel. “Given those circumstances, taking a suicidal decision was out of the question. So, we had no choice but to withdraw,” he revealed.

“We were unable to find a substitute to Beirut after we pulled out from it. There can be no substitute to this city that gave so much to the Palestinian revolution. Along with the Lebanese, we wronged the city, inadvertently at times. If only we had been better at understanding the fears of our rivals and circumstances of our allies,” he remarked.

“After Beirut, we had no choice but to look internally. I’m not exaggerating when I say that we criminally wronged Beirut. We wasted this glittering gem. I often wonder how the Lebanese people themselves allowed Beirut to deteriorate to such an extent. They took part in the crime as well, also inadvertently at times. There was an inevitable price to pay for the loss of Beirut,” he said.

Until recently aerospace engineer Pedro Monteiro figured he'd join many of his peers moving from Portugal to its richer European neighbors in the quest for a better-paid job once he completes his master's degree in Lisbon.
But tax breaks proposed by Portugal's government for young workers - up to a temporary 100% income tax exemption in some cases - plus help with housing are making him think twice.
"Previous governments left young people behind," said Monteiro, 23, who is studying engineering and industrial management at the Higher Technical Institute in the Portuguese capital. "The country needs us and we want to stay but we need to see signs from the government that they are implementing policies that will help."
Monteiro cites in particular the cost of buying or renting a home amid a housing crisis aggravated by the arrival of wealthy foreigners lured by easy residency rights and tax breaks, Reuters said.
He is doubtful the government's new measures will be enough.
"Some of my friends are now working abroad and earn substantially more money... and have better career development opportunities," he said. "I'm a little bit skeptical concerning my job opportunities here in Portugal."
Portugal is the latest country in Europe to seek to tackle a brain drain holding back its economy. Tax breaks for young workers in the budget currently going through parliament will take effect next year and could benefit as many as 400,000 young people at an annual cost of 525 million euros.
Talent flight to wealthier countries of the north is a problem Portugal shares with several others in southern and central Europe, as workers take advantage of freedom of movement rules within the trade bloc. Countries including Italy have tried other schemes to counter the flight, with mixed results.
By exacerbating regional labor shortages and depriving poorer countries of tax revenues, it is yet another hurdle for the EU as it tries to improve its ebbing economic growth while addressing population decline and lagging labor productivity.
Donald Trump's victory in US elections this month raises the stakes, with the risk of across-the-board trade tariffs on European exports of at least 10% - a move that economists say could turn Europe's anaemic growth into outright recession.
About 2.3 million people born in Portugal, or 23% of its population, currently live abroad, according to Portugal's Emigration Observatory. That includes 850,000 Portuguese nationals aged 15-39, or about 30% of young Portuguese and 12.6% of its working-age population.
More concerning still is that about 40% of 50,000 people who graduate from universities or technical colleges emigrate each year, according to a study by Business Roundtable Portugal and Deloitte based on official statistics, costing Portugal billions of euros in lost income tax revenue and social security contributions.
DEMOGRAPHIC HELL
"This is not a country for young people," said Pedro Ginjeira do Nascimento, executive director of Business Roundtable Portugal, which represents 43 of the largest companies in the nation of 10 million people. "Portugal is experiencing a true demographic hell because the country is unable to create conditions to retain and attract young talent."
Internal migration within the EU is partly driven by the disparity in wages between its member states. Some economic migrants also say they are looking for better benefits such as pensions and healthcare and less rigid, hierarchichal structures that give more responsibility to those in junior roles.
Concerns are mounting over the long-term viability of Europe's economic model with its rapidly ageing population and failure to win substantial shares of high-growth markets of the future, from tech to renewable energy.
Presenting a raft of reform proposals aimed at boosting local innovation and investment, former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi said in September the region faced a "slow agony" of decline if it did not compete more effectively.
Eszter Czovek, 45, and her husband are moving from Hungary to Austria, where workers earn an average 40.9 euros ($29.95) per hour compared to 12.8 euros per hour in Hungary, the largest wage gap between neighboring countries in the EU.
The number of Hungarians living in Austria increased to 107,264 by the beginning of 2024 from just 14,151 when Hungary joined the EU.
Czovek's husband, who works in construction, was offered a job in Austria, while she has worked in media and accounting at various multinationals. She cited better pay, pensions, work conditions and healthcare as motives for moving. She also mentioned her concern over the political situation in Hungary, which she fears might join Britain in leaving the EU.
"There was a change of regime here in 1989 and 30 years later we are still waiting for the miracle that will see us catch up with Austria," Czovek said of the revolution over three decades ago that ended communist rule in Hungary.
Since Brexit, the Netherlands has replaced Britain as a preferred destination for Portuguese talent while Germany and Scandinavian countries are also popular.
Many Europeans still head to the United States in search of better jobs - about 4.7 million were living there in 2022, according to the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, which nonetheless notes a long-term decline since the 1960s.
In 2023, 4,892 Portuguese emigrated to the Netherlands, surpassing Britain for the first time, which in 2019 received 24,500 Portuguese.
At home, they face the eighth-highest tax burden in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) even as house prices rose 186% and rents by 94% since 2015, according to property specialists Confidencial Imobiliario.
A single person in Portugal without children earned an average of 16,943 euros after tax in 2023 compared to 45,429 euros in the Netherlands, according to Eurostat.
Portugal will offer under 35s earning up to 28,000 euros a year a 100% tax exemption during their first year of work, gradually reducing the benefit to a 25% deduction between the eighth and tenth years.
Young people would also be exempted from transaction taxes and stamp duty when buying their first home as well as access to loans guaranteed by the state and rent subsidies.
"We are designing a solid package that tries to solve the main reasons why the young leave," Cabinet Minister Antonio Leitao Amaro said in an interview with Reuters.
'THINGS WON'T CHANGE'
Leitao Amaro said he did not know for sure if the tax breaks would work but that his government, which came into office in April, had to try something new.
"If we don't act ambitiously, things won't change and Portugal will continue down this path," he said.
The Italian government has already found that tax breaks used as incentives are costly and open to fraud.
In January, Italy abruptly curtailed its own scheme that was costing 1.3 billion euros in lost tax revenue, even as it lured tech workers such as Alessandra Mariani back home.
Before 2024, returners were offered a 70% tax break for five years, extendable for another five years in certain circumstances. Now, it plans to offer a slimmed-down scheme targeting specific skills after it attracted only 1,200 teachers or researchers - areas where Italy has a particular shortage.
Mariani said the incentives were key to persuading her to return to Milan in 2021 by allowing her to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed in London.
"Had the opportunity been the same without the scheme, I would not have done it at all," said Mariani, now working at the Italian arm of the same large tech company.
With her tax breaks poised to be phased out by 2026 unless she buys a house or has a child, Mariani faces a drop in salary and she said she's once again eyeing the exit door.

Arafat Refused to Credit Syria for Palestinian Resistance’s ‘Victory’ against 1982 Israeli Invasion of Beirut