عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Abed Rabbo: Arafat Was Mischievous with Gaddafi…Syrian Military Had Inherited Animosity Towards Him

Yasser Arafat (R), chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) shown in file picture dated September 1, 1989. (AFP)
Yasser Arafat (R), chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) shown in file picture dated September 1, 1989. (AFP)
TT
TT

Abed Rabbo: Arafat Was Mischievous with Gaddafi…Syrian Military Had Inherited Animosity Towards Him

Yasser Arafat (R), chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) shown in file picture dated September 1, 1989. (AFP)
Yasser Arafat (R), chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) shown in file picture dated September 1, 1989. (AFP)

What is happening in the Gaza Strip is closely related to Israel’s ongoing injustice, mainly the insistence of Israel’s successive governments on avoiding peace obligations. This injustice exacerbated after the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Agreement on September 13, 1993.
Arafat hoped the Oslo agreement to be a first step to the establishment of a Palestinian state on some parts of the land, but Benjamin Netanyahu built his policy on assassinating the agreement. The Oslo Accord is related to what preceded it, mainly the wars of capitals and the complex relationships between the PLO and some prominent Arab countries.
This dialogue with Yasser Abed Rabbo, former Secretary-General of the executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), is meant to shed light on some events that some born after Oslo did not have the opportunity to experience. Here is the third and final episode:
Asked how Arafat dealt with the 9/11 attacks and about President George Bush’s refusal to shake hands with Arafat at the United Nations headquarters after that.
Abed Rabbo recalled: “It was the result of what the Americans saw as test after test for Yasser Arafat.” For them, Arafat “failed the test in terms of condemning the actions carried out by Hamas and other factions targeting civilians, and because he did not do enough to prevent those actions, and that Yasser Arafat was also complicit to some extent. Their evidence of this is the ‘Karen A’ ship and others.”
“A new situation was created after Bush’s famous statement that the “Palestinian people deserve better than this Palestinian leadership, which is involved in terrorism”... This statement created a situation in which we have actually moved to the stage of complete rupture with the US administration, and complete hostility to the person of Arafat and towards the authority as a whole under his leadership.”
Thorny Relation with Hafez Assad
Relations were not friendly or normal between Yasser Arafat and Hafez Assad.
Yasser Abed Rabbo went to Damascus on a mission after the Syrian military intervention in Lebanon in 1976 where he met Assad.
He was asked: What did Assad tell you? Abed Rabbo replied: “There was a military clash in Sidon (southern Lebanon), and also some clashes and skirmishes in the Sawfar region (Mount Lebanon) and elsewhere. The situation became tense and an armed confrontation erupted between us and them (the Syrians), so the leadership in Beirut decided not to engage in the clash at this stage.”
"I believe that several countries, including the Gulf states particularly Saudi Arabia, stepped in to stop the conflict and contain the situation. The Syrians therefore agreed to receive our delegation to meet President Assad. I went there with Faoruk al-Qaddoumi. He was the Foreign Minister, and he is of course the head of the delegation. We met with President Assad”.
Abed Rabbo added that Assad was frowning and looked angry when he first entered the room. “He immediately surprised us and said: “What are you doing?...You cut off the heads of the Syrians who entered Sidon and played football with them in the streets.””
Abed Rabbo noted that he made sure to explain to Assad that the situation was a serious misunderstanding, and that no Syrian soldiers were hurt.
“...It was a miserable military failure”, Abed Rabbo told Assad “Is it reasonable for us to take Syrian prisoners?
“I confronted (Assad’s words) and said to him: Mr. President, how are these words possible? Firstly, it is shameful for anyone to use the term prisoners. Syrian soldiers are not prisoners. There was a mistake made by a commander and he found himself (lost) in Sidon. The militia members in Sidon saw tanks that they did not know for whom they belonged. A confrontation erupted but fortunately no one was injured by the gunfire. The forty soldiers are well and there were no beheadings. He (Assad) replied: By God, these are the reports I received. Are they writing false reports for me?
I said: Please make sure. There was no one injured... Let them send someone to get them back. We don’t know to whom we shall send them”.
Arafat Not a Fan of Expanding the War in Lebanon
On accusations that Arafat incited Kamal Jumblatt to take the war to the Mountain area, Abed Rabbo said: “Honestly, never. I believe that Kamal Jumblatt wanted the Palestinian resistance with all its forces to expand the front to the Mountain... He requested Fatah's participation in the process.”
But “Fatah did not participate, and if it did, it did so in a symbolic way...I am confident that it was not his (Arafat) plan to go to the mountain or turn to Bikfaya from the side of Dhour El-Shwair, as others had expected.”
Abed Rabbo added that “no one could ever go to the Mountain area and Aley” except with the consent of the socialist party.
Cruelty against Arafat is Inherent in Syria
Asked if Chief of staff of the Syrian Army General Hikmat al-Shehabi was very harsh to Arafat, Abed Rabbo said: “It seemed inherited among the leadership of the Syrian army. Mustafa Tlas did not like Yasser Arafat. Sometimes in some of his speeches he was extremely obscene and insulted him with vulgar and cheap insults. Hikmat Al-Shehabi could not stand the name Arafat at all. He was open about it to us.”
Asked about Sabri al-Banna (Abou Nidal), Abed Rabbo said: “He is extremely narcissistic, proud of himself and highly suspicious...he is quick to accuse... he doesn’t make you feel comfortable. At other times it is as if he had a real split personality, you find him calm and sociable.
“Abou Nidal immersed himself deeply in Palestinian blood, mainly during the Syrian-Palestinian rapprochement after the October war, and the emergence of the peace project and the PLO's Ten Point Program. It was the first seed of accepting the notion of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
This was a warning bell for the Iraqis. They started working against the PLO and Fatah. They resorted to assassinations. They assassinated the ambassador in Kuwait and in Paris and in many other places”.
Gaddafi and Arafat’s Charisma
Asked whether an understanding was difficult between Arafat and Gaddafi, Abed Rabbo said: “It was difficult and easy. Gaddafi used to welcome Arafat warmly and friendly...Yasser Arafat dared to speak harshly to him, and even reprimanded him.
Gaddafi used to accept that because “Abou Ammar” considered himself not only older in age but also older in terms of his revolutionary history.
Abou Ammar did not give Gaddafi much importance because he was stingy in supporting Fatah and the PLO.
Arafat was charismatic. He had real charisma that some could not bear. Hafez Assad could not bear it. Ahmed Hasan Bakr could not stand Arafat. Saddam, maybe, felt himself at no competition with anyone because he had the conviction that since his young age he was above all humanity. Gaddafi was also jealous... He had to deal with Arafat with respect.”
Gaza Was Sacred for Arafat
Abed Rabbo met Arafat for the first time during The Battle of Karameh in 1968 in Jordan. It was the battle that gave legitimacy to Fatah and Arafat.
Asked if he misses Arafat today, Abed Rabbo said everyone who knew Arafat misses him and misses his role today.
“He would not have allowed all the circumstances that led to the latest aggression on Gaza,” Abed Rabbo said, adding that if Arafat was still alive he would not have allowed that division between the ranks of the PLO or Hamas’ diversion from the rest of the factions.
“It was not possible for this division to occur within the Palestinian movement and for Hamas to separate from the rest of the factions and the PLO, or for Gaza’s separation from the West Bank.
Gaza was sacred to Yasser Arafat. It was not possible for him to leave Gaza even if Hamas carried out a hundred coups”, he stated.
Abed Rabbo was asked how he left Jordan after the bloody 1970 events, he said: “I left in 1971. We remained in hiding in Amman after it came under the control of the Jordanian army. We then moved to live in the forests in Jerash and Ajloun where all the resistance forces gathered and (were subjected to shelling).
The meeting of the Palestine National Council was held in July or August. We, Abou Jihad (Khalil al-Wazir) and I, were asked to leave for Cairo to attend the meeting. We left under Arab protection and the forests of Jerash and Ajloun were swept after we left”.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Iran at a Critical Crossroads Testing the Survival of its Regime

Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)
Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)
TT
TT

Iran at a Critical Crossroads Testing the Survival of its Regime

Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)
Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)

Iran is confronting one of the most consequential junctures since the founding of the republic in 1979. The pressures bearing down on the system are no longer confined to economic sanctions or familiar forms of external coercion, but now cut to the heart of the governing formula itself: how to ensure the regime’s survival without accelerating the very forces that threaten to undermine it.

At the center of this moment lies a stark existential dilemma. A permissive response to internal unrest risks allowing protests to spread and harden into a protracted campaign of political attrition, while a sweeping security crackdown would heighten external dangers, at a time of mounting international hostility and unprecedented US warnings.

Caught between these two paths, Tehran finds its room for maneuver shrinking to levels it has rarely faced before.

Passing protests or structural shift?

The evolution of the current protests raises a central question about their nature: are they a containable social wave, or a deeper expression of a shift in public mood? The spread of demonstrations to small and medium-sized cities, and the widening of their social base, reflect an advanced level of discontent, even if it has not yet reached the threshold of a comprehensive explosion.

Farzin Nadimi, a senior Iran analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argues that this wave differs from previous ones.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the latest protests, unlike earlier waves led by university students or low-income workers in major cities, are now driven by young people in smaller towns and supported by university students nationwide.

He described them as “more entrenched and widespread,” though not yet as large as some previous protests, noting the absence of government employees and oil workers, alongside a strong female presence once again.

This assessment aligns with the reading of Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who pointed to three key differences defining this wave: the nature of the participating forces, the symbolism of its launch from Tehran’s bazaar, and the impact of Israeli strikes that have punctured the aura surrounding Iran.

By contrast, Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, cautions against overestimating the street’s ability to bring about rapid change, noting that the Iranian system is highly organized and does not hesitate to use violence to control society.

‘Political fuel’

Iran’s economic crisis is no longer a technical issue that can be separated from politics. The collapse of the currency, the erosion of purchasing power, and declining trust in institutions have turned the economy into a direct driver of protest.

With each new round of pressure or sanctions, the sense deepens that the system is incapable of delivering real solutions without making political concessions.

Alex Vatanka, a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, argues that what is unfolding goes beyond anger over prices or living conditions.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the protests reflect a deeper shift in public opinion, in which opposition is no longer directed at specific policies but at the model of governance itself. This shift, he said, confronts the system with a difficult question: can the economy be saved without rethinking the structure of power?

The security establishment: cohesion or fatigue?

Security institutions, from the Revolutionary Guards and their Basij mobilization arm to the intelligence services, form the backbone of the system’s ability to endure. Historically, these institutions have been the primary guarantor of internal stability, but mounting pressures now raise questions about their moral and ideological cohesion.

Rubin said that cracks are widening, pointing to rumors that Tehran has turned to deploying forces from Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces and Afghanistan’s Fatemiyoun Brigade due to declining confidence in some Revolutionary Guard units’ willingness to carry out orders.

Vatanka, for his part, acknowledged that these institutions remain cohesive for now, but warned that this cohesion is under growing strain from economic and social exhaustion, which over time could erode morale and produce partial fractures, even if open defections remain unlikely in the foreseeable future.

From deterrence to breaking taboos

If internal challenges are pressing on the structure of power, the external environment multiplies the risks. US-Israeli escalation, coupled with the waning weight of regional allies, places Iran before a radically different strategic landscape.

Threats by US President Donald Trump to support Iranian protesters signal a qualitative shift in US rhetoric, in which the focus is no longer confined to the nuclear program, but now includes Iran’s internal dynamics as part of the pressure equation.

Nadimi said that the developments in Venezuela and the arrest of Nicolas Maduro as carrying troubling implications for Tehran, while stressing the differences between the two cases, arguing that Iran is larger and more complex, and that Washington does not believe its system can be easily overthrown without a clear internal alternative.

Vatanka, however, sees a significant psychological impact from that precedent, saying it has weakened the assumption that leaders are immune from personal targeting.

The regional network: asset or burden?

Israeli strikes in June that targeted military leaders and sovereign symbols inside Iran reflect a shift in Israel’s security doctrine, from containment to direct confrontation.

O’Hanlon said that this pattern, following events in Venezuela and attacks on figures linked to Iran’s nuclear program, has become more likely under Trump, reflecting a willingness to break taboos that once held.

At the same time, questions are resurfacing over the effectiveness of Iran’s regional network. According to Vatanka, these arms are no longer a real deterrent, but have become, given their rising costs, a strategic burden.

Rubin agreed, adding that they have drained the state treasury, although he does not rule out the system turning to them if the crisis intensifies on the domestic front.

Amid this complex entanglement between internal and external pressures, the Iranian system’s options are narrowing as never before.

Between those who see this weakness as an opportunity to rebalance the region and those who fear widespread chaos, the core question remains: Is Tehran facing a manageable crisis of governance or an existential crisis that could shape Iran and the region for decades to come?

Features

‘Nobody Is Going to Run Home’: Venezuelan Diaspora in Wait-and-See Mode

A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)
A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)
TT
TT

‘Nobody Is Going to Run Home’: Venezuelan Diaspora in Wait-and-See Mode

A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)
A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)

"A new dawn for Venezuela" is how a top US diplomat described the future awaiting the Caribbean country after Saturday's capture of President Nicolas Maduro by US special forces in a raid on Caracas.

But for some of the eight million Venezuelans who fled the country over the past decade of economic ruin and repression, the joy at seeing Maduro hauled before a New York court on Monday was tempered by the knowledge that his henchmen remain at the helm.

News of Maduro's demise initially triggered scenes of jubilation among the diaspora.

Several people choked up as they recalled the hardship they fled, and the family they left behind, over the course of his increasingly despotic rule.

But while many said they dreamed about returning to their homeland, they made it clear they had no plans to pack their bags just yet.

Most cited the country's tattered economy as a reason to keep working abroad and sending home remittances.

Some also spoke of their fear of Venezuela's security apparatus, pointing to the paramilitaries who roamed the streets of Caracas on Saturday to crack down on anyone rejoicing over Maduro's ouster.

"There has been no change of regime in Venezuela, there is no transition," said Ligia Bolivar, a Venezuelan sociologist and rights activist living in Colombia since 2019.

"In these circumstances nobody is going to run home," she told AFP.

Standing outside the Venezuelan consulate in Bogota, where he was waiting to renew his passport on Monday, Alejandro Solorzano, 35, echoed that view.

"Everything remains the same," he said, referring to US President Donald Trump's decision to work with Maduro's administration rather than the democratic opposition.

Maduro's former deputy Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as acting president on Monday, becoming the interim head of an administration that still includes hardline Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and powerful Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez.

Cabello in particular is a figure of dread for many Venezuelans, after commandeering a crackdown on post-election protests in 2024 in which some 2,400 people were arrested.

Many Venezuelans were particularly shocked by Trump's decision to sideline opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, from the transition.

The European Union on Monday demanded that any transition include Machado and her replacement candidate in the 2024 elections Maduro is accused of stealing, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia.

Andrea, a 47-year-old immigration advisor living in Buenos Aires, argued, however, that Machado's hour had not yet come.

"Until Trump sees that the situation is under control, until he has all these criminals by the balls, he won't be able to put Maria Corina in charge. Because that would be throwing her to the wolves," she said.

- 'No other way' -

Luis Peche, a political analyst who survived a gun attack in Bogota last year suspected of being a political hit, also argued in favor of a negotiated transition.

"We have to see this as a process," Peche told AFP, referring to Venezuela's transition.

"You still need part of the state apparatus to remain," he said.

Tamara Suju, a leading Venezuelan rights expert based in Spain, said that keeping the same tainted cast in charge was a necessary evil -- in the short term.

"They are the ones with whom the Trump administration is negotiating the transition because there is no other way to do it," she told Spain's esRadio, predicting they would eventually be forced by Washington to fall on their swords.

Edwin Reyes, a 46-year-old window installer living in Colombia for the past eight years, said that once Venezuela was "completely free" he would consider a move back.

"We've waited so long, another four or five months won't hurt."

Features

Trump Administration's Capture of Maduro Raises Unease about the International Legal Framework

President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
TT
TT

Trump Administration's Capture of Maduro Raises Unease about the International Legal Framework

President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

From the smoldering wreckage of two catastrophic world wars in the last century, nations came together to build an edifice of international rules and laws. The goal was to prevent such sprawling conflicts in the future.

Now that world order — centered at the United Nations headquarters in New York, near the courtroom where Nicolás Maduro was arraigned Monday after his removal from power in Venezuela — appears in danger of crumbling as the doctrine of “might makes right” muscles its way back onto the global stage.

UN Undersecretary-General Rosemary A. DiCarlo told the body's Security Council on Monday that the “maintenance of international peace and security depends on the continued commitment of all member states to adhere to all the provisions of the (UN) Charter.”

US President Donald Trump insists capturing Maduro was legal. His administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and said the US is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.

The mission to snatch Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from their home on a military base in the capital Caracas means they face charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy. The US ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, defended the military action as a justified “surgical law enforcement operation.”

The move fits into the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, published last month, that lays out restoring “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere” as a key goal of the US president's second term in the White House.

But could it also serve as a blueprint for further action?

Worry rises about future action

On Sunday evening, Trump also put Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia, and its leftist president, Gustavo Petro, on notice.

In a back-and-forth with reporters, Trump said Colombia is “run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.” The Trump administration imposed sanctions in October on Petro, his family and a member of his government over accusations of involvement in the global drug trade. Colombia is considered the epicenter of the world’s cocaine trade.

Analysts and some world leaders — from China to Mexico — have condemned the Venezuela mission. Some voiced fears that Maduro’s ouster could pave the way for more military interventions and a further erosion of the global legal order.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the capture of Maduro “runs counter to the principle of the non-use of force, which forms the basis of international law.”

He warned the “increasing number of violations of this principle by nations vested with the important responsibility of permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council will have serious consequences for global security and will spare no one.”

Here are some global situations that could be affected by changing attitudes on such issues.

Ukraine

For nearly four years, Europe has been dealing with Russia’s war of aggression in neighboring Ukraine, a conflict that grates against the eastern flank of the continent and the transatlantic NATO alliance and has widely been labeled a grave breach of international law.

The European Union relies deeply on US support to keep Ukraine afloat, particularly after the administration warned that Europe must look after its own security in the future.

Vasily Nebenzya, the Russian ambassador to the UN, said the mission to extract Maduro amounted to “a turn back to the era of lawlessness” by the United States. During the UN Security Council’s emergency meeting, he called on the 15-member panel to “unite and to definitively reject the methods and tools of US military foreign policy.”

Volodymyr Fesenko, chairman of the board of the Penta think tank in Kyiv, Ukraine, said Russian President Vladimir Putin has long undermined the global order and weakened international law.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “Trump’s actions have continued this trend.”

Greenland

Trump fanned another growing concern for Europe when he openly speculated about the future of the Danish territory of Greenland.

“It’s so strategic right now. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” Trump told reporters Sunday as he flew back to Washington from his home in Florida. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in a statement that Trump has “no right to annex” the territory. She also reminded Trump that Denmark already provides the US, a fellow NATO member, broad access to Greenland through existing security agreements.

Taiwan

The mission to capture Maduro has ignited speculation about a similar move China could make against the leader of Taiwan, Lai Ching-te. Just last week, in response to a US plan to sell a massive military arms package to Taipei, China conducted two days of military drills around the island emocracy that Beijing claims as its own territory.

Beijing, however, is unlikely to replicate Trump’s action in Venezuela, which could prove destabilizing and risky.

Chinese strategy has been to gradually increase pressure on Taiwan through military harassment, propaganda campaigns and political influence rather than to single out Lai as a target. China looks to squeeze Taiwan into eventually accepting a status similar to Hong Kong and Macau, which are governed semi-autonomously on paper but have come under increasing central control.

For China, Maduro’s capture also brings a layer of uncertainty about the Trump administration’s ability to move fast, unpredictably and audaciously against other governments. Beijing has criticized Maduro’s capture, calling it a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state” and saying Washington is acting as the “world’s judge.”

The Mideast

Israel's grinding attack on Gaza in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas underscored the international community's inability to stop a devastating conflict. The United States, Israel's staunchest ally, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for ceasefires in Gaza.

Trump already has demonstrated his willingness to take on Israel's neighbor and longtime US adversary Iran over its nuclear program with military strikes on sites in Iran in June 2025.

On Friday, Trump warned Iran that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the US “will come to their rescue.” Violence sparked by Iran’s ailing economy has killed at least 35 people, activists said Tuesday.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the “illegal US attack against Venezuela.”

Europe and Trump

The 27-nation European Union, another post-World War II institution intended to foster peace and prosperity, is grappling with how to respond to its traditional ally under the Trump administration. In a clear indication of the increasingly fragile nature of the transatlantic relationship, Trump’s national security strategy painted the bloc as weak.

While insisting Maduro has no political legitimacy, the EU said in a statement on the mission to capture him that “the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld,” adding that members of the UN Security Council “have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles.”

But outspoken Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close Trump ally, spoke disparagingly about the role international law plays in regulating the behavior of countries.

International rules, he said, “do not govern the decisions of many great powers. This is completely obvious.”