عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Abed Rabbo: Arafat Urged Saddam to Withdraw from Kuwait

Saddam Hussein during a meeting with Yasser Arafat in Baghdad in May 1990 (Getty Images)
Saddam Hussein during a meeting with Yasser Arafat in Baghdad in May 1990 (Getty Images)
TT
TT

Abed Rabbo: Arafat Urged Saddam to Withdraw from Kuwait

Saddam Hussein during a meeting with Yasser Arafat in Baghdad in May 1990 (Getty Images)
Saddam Hussein during a meeting with Yasser Arafat in Baghdad in May 1990 (Getty Images)

Yasser Abed Rabbo, former Secretary-General of the executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), played a key role in historic talks between Yasser Arafat and Israeli and US officials.
He also participated in meetings with Saddam Hussein after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. His insights shed light on crucial moments. Here's what he said about missed opportunities in negotiations:
“At Camp David in 2000, doubts arose from the start, particularly about American intentions.”
“President Bill Clinton offered a proposal that gave away over 10% of the West Bank, with unclear terms on Jerusalem’s holy sites. This ambiguity favored Israel.”
“Arafat saw these sites as non-negotiable, fearing any compromise would brand him a traitor.”
“He was determined not to be seen as conceding what past leaders hadn’t. Even regarding the Wailing Wall, he insisted it was also the Buraq Wall in Islam, not solely Jewish.”
“For Arafat, protecting these sites meant preserving his legacy as a national hero,” stressed Abed Rabbo.
US ‘Lost Mediator Role’ at Camp David
“Returning to Camp David, the US’ proposal caused a stir and strong reaction because we hadn’t started negotiations with the Israelis. It seemed biased towards Israel,” revealed Abed Rabbo.
According to the Palestinian politician, Washington “quickly withdrew the proposal the next day to open discussions on all issues, including borders, land, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees.”
The quick withdrawal raised deep doubts among Palestinians.
“It seemed like the Americans had their own agenda, treating their retreat as a tactical move,” said Abed Rabbo.
“This was the first setback for Palestinian negotiators and Yasser Arafat, questioning the sincerity of the process and reliance on the US,” he added.
“Arafat then insisted on direct talks with Ehud Barak to address all issues before involving committees.”
Abed Rabbo noted that Barak avoided direct talks, preferring meetings with Clinton and US representatives as he seemingly relied on their stance against the Palestinians.
“Despite attending committee meetings, Barak refused to engage until they followed his approach. Meetings with Clinton felt hollow, with discussions often echoing Israeli views. It felt like the US and Israel were coordinating without us,” recalled Abed Rabbo.
“This undermined the US role as a mediator,” he concluded.
Arafat’s Error in the Second Intifada
When asked about Iran backing the Oslo Accords’ downfall through suicide attacks, Abed Rabbo said : “I doubt Iran was involved. Hamas led most suicide operations, with other groups also taking part.”
“Arafat made a mistake, hinting to Hamas that he approved these attacks to pressure Israelis. He didn’t condemn the operations themselves, only attacks on civilians by both sides,” clarified Abed Rabbo.

 

As for Arafat’s influence being a barrier to the growth of Hamas, Abed Rabbo admitted that the Palestinian leader initially cracked down on Hamas.
“As the second intifada unfolded after Yitzhak Rabin’s death and Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to Al-Aqsa, Arafat saw Hamas’ attacks as pressure tactics on Israelis,” revealed Abed Rabbo.
In summary, Arafat’s stance shifted over time, initially cracking down on Hamas but later seeing attacks as a means to pressure Israelis.
After Rabin’s death, during a transitional phase that included Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu’s election in 1996, the first meeting with Netanyahu occurred at an Israeli military base at the Erez checkpoint, near the entrance to Gaza.
“I was with Arafat in his first meeting with Netanyahu. Another person was there, but I can't recall who,” said Abed Rabbo.
Netanyahu started that meeting by telling Arafat he opposed the Oslo Accords signed with Peres and Rabin.
“With this new government, those agreements are over. We'll follow a principle of reciprocity: positive steps get positive responses, negative steps get negative ones,” Netanyahu told Arafat, according to Abed Rabbo.
In the meeting, Abed Rabbo asked Netanyahu: “Even if we accept this, which we don't because the Oslo Accord binds both Israel and us, who decides if our actions are positive or negative?”
“We decide,” said Netanyahu.
“Then you're both the opponent and the judge,” replied Abed Rabbo.
“It was clear it wouldn't work. Arafat asked for a private meeting but left feeling Netanyahu wanted to destroy Oslo. Since then, Arafat became more cautious, knowing saving Oslo faces big challenges,” recalled Abed Rabbo.
Saddam Compared Jerusalem’s Lights to Baghdad’s
Asked if Arafat misjudged Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Abed Rabbo said: “Definitely. Arafat opposed the invasion internally but feared losing ties with Saddam. His regional support was weak, especially with Hafez al-Assad’s Syria.”
“He spent years in Tunisian exile. His Jordan ties were tense. Despite good Gulf relations, Arafat hoped for a peaceful resolution, but feared losing ties if Saddam fell.”
“Saddam’s support for the Palestinian liberation movement was significant,” said Abed Rabbo.
“Arafat valued not just the financial aid but also logistical support, ensuring communication between Iraq, the West Bank, and Gaza through Jordan.”
“I was with Arafat when he met Saddam Hussein after the Kuwait invasion. Arafat urged Saddam to withdraw, fearing Iraq's fate.”
Recalling the meeting, Abed Rabbo said: “We met in a modest villa in Baghdad’s Al Zawraa Park. Arafat was open, expressing concern over Iraq's fate.”
“I’ve accounted for everything,” Saddam assured Arafat, standing at the villa’s door, overlooking Baghdad.
“Abu Ammar, I see Jerusalem’s lights as I see Baghdad’s now before me. It signifies Jerusalem’s liberation,” remarked Saddam at the time.
Abed Rabbo was born in Jaffa in 1945 and moved to Lebanon after the Nakba. At fifteen, he joined the Arab Nationalists Movement under Mohsen Ibrahim. He studied economics and political science at the American University in Cairo.
In 1968, he helped establish the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine with George Habash and others. The next year, he co-founded the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He later founded the Fida Party in 1990 and stepped down in 2004.
Abed Rabbo met Yasser Arafat during the Battle of Karameh in 1968. They formed a strong bond, allowing him to play a key role in US-PLO dialogue.
He led the Palestinian delegation in talks with the US in 1989 and was active in the Oslo Accords negotiations. He held ministerial positions after Palestinian leaders returned, and he attended many meetings with Israeli and US officials.
From 2005 to 2015, he served as Secretary-General of the PLO’s Executive Committee. He left due to disputes with Mahmoud Abbas. His role allowed him to engage in meetings with Arab and global leaders. He also shared a close friendship with Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

The Fragile Israel-Hezbollah Truce is Holding so Far, Despite Violations

Mariam Kourani removes a toy car from the rubble of her destroyed house after returning with her family to the Hanouiyeh village in southern Lebanon, on Nov. 28, 2024, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)
Mariam Kourani removes a toy car from the rubble of her destroyed house after returning with her family to the Hanouiyeh village in southern Lebanon, on Nov. 28, 2024, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)
TT
TT

The Fragile Israel-Hezbollah Truce is Holding so Far, Despite Violations

Mariam Kourani removes a toy car from the rubble of her destroyed house after returning with her family to the Hanouiyeh village in southern Lebanon, on Nov. 28, 2024, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)
Mariam Kourani removes a toy car from the rubble of her destroyed house after returning with her family to the Hanouiyeh village in southern Lebanon, on Nov. 28, 2024, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)

A fragile ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanon's Hezbollah has held up for over a month, even as its terms seem unlikely to be met by the agreed-upon deadline.

The deal struck on Nov. 27 to halt the war required Hezbollah to immediately lay down its arms in southern Lebanon and gave Israel 60 days to withdraw its forces there and hand over control to the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers.

So far, Israel has withdrawn from just two of the dozens of towns it holds in southern Lebanon. And it has continued striking what it says are bases belonging to Hezbollah, which it accuses of attempting to launch rockets and move weapons before they can be confiscated and destroyed, The AP reported.

Hezbollah, which was severely diminished during nearly 14 months of war, has threatened to resume fighting if Israel does not fully withdraw its forces by the 60-day deadline.

Yet despite accusations from both sides about hundreds of ceasefire violations, the truce is likely to hold, analysts say. That is good news for thousands of Israeli and Lebanese families displaced by the war still waiting to return home.

“The ceasefire agreement is rather opaque and open to interpretation,” said Firas Maksad, a senior fellow with the Middle East Institute in Washington. That flexibility, he said, may give it a better chance of holding in the face of changing circumstances, including the ouster of Syria's longtime leader, Bashar Assad, just days after the ceasefire took effect.

With Assad gone, Hezbollah lost a vital route for smuggling weapons from Iran. While that further weakened Hezbollah’s hand, Israel had already agreed to the US-brokered ceasefire.

Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel on Oct. 8, 2023 — the day after Hamas launched a deadly attack into Israel that ignited the ongoing war in Gaza. Since then, Israeli air and ground assaults have killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon, including hundreds of civilians. At the height of the war, more than 1 million Lebanese people were displaced.

Hezbollah rockets forced some 60,000 from their homes in northern Israel, and killed 76 people in Israel, including 31 soldiers. Almost 50 Israeli soldiers were killed during operations inside Lebanon.

Here’s a look at the terms of the ceasefire and its prospects for ending hostilities over the long-term.

What does the ceasefire agreement say? The agreement says that both Hezbollah and Israel will halt “offensive” military actions, but that they can act in self-defense, although it is not entirely clear how that term may be interpreted.

The Lebanese army is tasked with preventing Hezbollah and other militant groups from launching attacks into Israel. It is also required to dismantle Hezbollah facilities and weapons in southern Lebanon — activities that might eventually be expanded to the rest of Lebanon, although it is not explicit in the ceasefire agreement.

The United States, France, Israel, Lebanon and the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, are responsible for overseeing implementation of the agreement.

“The key question is not whether the deal will hold, but what version of it will be implemented,” Maksad, the analyst, said.

Is the ceasefire being implemented? Hezbollah has for the most part halted its rocket and drone fire into Israel, and Israel has stopped attacking Hezbollah in most areas of Lebanon. But Israel has launched regular airstrikes on what it says are militant sites in southern Lebanon and in the Bekaa Valley.

Israeli forces have so far withdrawn from two towns in southern Lebanon - Khiam and Shamaa. They remain in some 60 others, according to the International Organization for Migration, and around 160,000 Lebanese remain displaced.

Lebanon has accused Israel of repeatedly violating the ceasefire agreement and last week submitted a complaint to the UN Security Council that says Israel launched some 816 “ground and air attacks” between the start of the ceasefire and Dec. 22, 2024.

The complaint said the attacks have hindered the Lebanese army's efforts to deploy in the south and uphold its end of the ceasefire agreement.

Until Israel hands over control of more towns to the Lebanese army, Israeli troops have been destroying Hezbollah infrastructure, including weapons warehouses and underground tunnels. Lebanese authorities say Israel has also destroyed civilian houses and infrastructure.

What happens after the ceasefire has been in place for 60 days? Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese towns has been slower than anticipated because of a lack of Lebanese army troops ready to take over, according to Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesman. Lebanon disputes this, and says it is waiting for Israel to withdraw before entering the towns.

Shoshani said Israel is satisfied with the Lebanese army's control of the areas it has already withdrawn from, and that while it would prefer a faster transfer of power, security is its most important objective.

Israel does not consider the 60-day timetable for withdrawal to be “sacred,” said Harel Chorev, an expert on Israel-Lebanon relations at Tel Aviv University who estimates that Lebanon will need to recruit and deploy thousands more troops before Israel will be ready to hand over control.

Hezbollah officials have said that if Israeli forces remain in Lebanon 60 days past the start of the ceasefire, the militant group might return to attacking them. But Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Kassem said Wednesday that, for now, the group is holding off to give the Lebanese state a chance to "take responsibility” for enforcing the agreement.

Over the final two months of the war, Hezbollah suffered major blows to its leadership, weapons and forces from a barrage of Israeli airstrikes, and a ground invasion that led to fierce battles in southern Lebanon. The fall of Assad was another big setback.

“The power imbalance suggests Israel may want to ensure greater freedom of action after the 60-day period,” Maksad, the analyst, said. And Hezbollah, in its weakened position, now has a “strong interest” in making sure the deal doesn't fall apart altogether “despite Israeli violations,” he said.

While Hezbollah may not be in a position to return to open war with Israel, it or other groups could mount guerilla attacks using light weaponry if Israeli troops remain in southern Lebanon, said former Lebanese army Gen. Hassan Jouni. And even if Israel does withdraw all of its ground forces, Jouni said, the Israeli military could could continue to carry out sporadic airstrikes in Lebanon, much as it has done in Syria for years.