Memoirs of Abdel-Halim Khaddam: I Told Arafat He Was Lying, Plotting Against Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria

In this eighth episode of the memoirs of Abdel-Halim Khaddam, published by Asharq Al-Awsat, the late Syrian vice-president narrates the decisive moments of the military intervention in Lebanon in 1976, the parallel contacts that took place between Syria and the Arab countries to form an Arab deterrent force, in addition to the role of the Syrian forces.

He says: “In light of the insistence of the Palestinian leadership and the allied Lebanese parties on continuing the fighting and the refusal to lift the siege on Zahle and the Christian villages in the north of Lebanon, and in the face of all the damage inflicted on the Lebanese people… the Syrian military intervention became urgent to stop this dirty war, so our forces crossed the Lebanese borders on June 1, 1976, on the day Alexei Kosygin, Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, arrived in Damascus.”

Khaddam devotes a large part of his account to the conflict with the head of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat (Abu Ammar), in the diplomatic corridors, especially during a meeting that coincided with the entry of the Syrian forces into Lebanon.

“On June 1, 1976, the Coordination Office of the Non-Aligned Movement convened in the city of Algiers, in the presence of Arafat, who gave a theatrical speech and talked about an American-French-Israeli plot against the Palestinian revolution and the national forces in Lebanon, and that he feared it would be implemented by Arab hands”, in reference to Syria.”

Khaddam added that he responded to Arafat loudly so that everyone could hear him, saying: “You lied, Yasser, as is your habit, and did wrong to Syria and the Palestinian cause… You are tearing Lebanon apart, tearing the Palestinians apart, and serving Israel.”

Arafat replied, saying: “You entered Lebanon and hit us.” Khaddam answered: “We will strike everyone who tries to divide, and we will hold accountable everyone who sheds blood. Lebanon is not Palestine. You will pay a dear price for your conspiracy against Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.”

The late Syrian vice-president recounts: “During the discussions to amend the Lebanese constitution to elect a new president, it was agreed that President Sleiman Franjieh would submit his resignation, so that the new president, Elias Sarkis, would exercise his powers, work to end the war and achieve reconciliation. Despite the election, tension remained and the shooting continued. The national movement campaign escalated under the leadership of Kamal Jumblatt, and the Palestinian leadership continued to play with fire to prevent a serious cessation of fighting and the start of a national dialogue to end the crisis, according to the constitutional document.”

In May 1976, Khaddam received Karim Pakradouni, who conveyed a message from President Sarkis, saying: “[Sarkis] believes that his first contact should be with Syria to explain his perception. He is confident that the first step they should take is political dialogue with the conflicting parties. This must take place in two stages: The first is to ask the parties to end the fighting, while the second is to have a round-table meeting.”

Despite the efforts made to calm the situation in preparation for the presidential transition from Franjieh to Sarkis, the political atmosphere witnessed further tension after an alliance was forged between Raymond Edde, Kamal Jumblatt, and Saeb Salam, in addition to the forces of the national and progressive parties, and the efforts made by Arafat to continue the fighting.

Khaddam says: “The military pressure of the Palestinian forces and their Lebanese allies intensified in Mount Lebanon and Beirut, and some Christian forces were attacked in the south. The siege also intensified around Zahle and Christian villages in Akkar, including Qobayat and Andaqt. Lebanon was threatened by the widening of the circle of sectarian massacres, which provided the best opportunities for Israel to intervene and find an ally in the Lebanese arena.

The late Syrian official said that with the escalation of the fighting, Jumblatt made proposals, including: “A serious ceasefire without the withdrawal of fighters from their positions, engaging into round table negotiations without preconditions, the gradual withdrawal of the Syrian army, and defining the agenda of the dialogue: political reform, amendment of some articles of the constitution and the political system… and the re-arrangement of institutions in a national, non-sectarian order.”

According to Khaddam, it was clear that Jumblatt had a vision to build a new regime in Lebanon that would free the people from the sectarian system, and that would constitute a guarantee for some segments of Lebanese society, and end the Maronite domination of the country’s leadership.

“On June 2, 1976, the Palestinian coalition, along with some Lebanese forces, called for a general strike to protest the entry of the Syrian forces into Lebanon. The Palestinian militias and their allied forces (the Communist Party, the Communist Action Organization, the Syrian Nationalist Party, Al-Mourabitoun, and other organizations imposed by Arafat from Fatah) forced shop owners to close their stores under death threats.

“It is evident that the strike only took place in areas controlled by the Palestinian forces and their allies. As for the other regions, they were in a different situation, as the entry of the Syrian forces, which was carried out at the request of President Franjieh, lifted the siege on the threatened Christian areas and dispelled their fears.

“On June 3, the Lebanese National Movement held a meeting headed by Jumblatt, and issued a statement declaring the sweeping success of the general strike that included all Lebanese regions in rejection of the Syrian military occupation and of every foreign intervention… In parallel, the commander of the Arab Lebanon Army, Lieutenant Ahmed Al-Khatib, a Lebanese Army dissident, made an appeal to confront the Syrian army.

“Despite this media propaganda, the militias of the Palestinian factions and their allies from the Lebanese parties were fleeing our forces. As usual, Arafat started shouting and crying out. He called for a meeting of the Arab League, which was scheduled for June 9.

Khaddam continues: “On the morning of June 9, I headed to Cairo, and was met at the airport by Mamoun Al-Atassi, our embassy’s Chargé d'Affairs. As the plane landed, he came up to me and informed me that a meeting took place the day before, on June 8, and a delegation was formed (to go to Damascus), headed by Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Mubarak bin Hamad Al Khalifa, head of the session, and the foreign ministers of Algeria (Bouteflika) and Libya (Ali Triki) and Secretary-General of the Arab League (Mahmoud Riad). I asked the pilots to prepare an immediate departure plan for Damascus to meet with President Assad, and I asked Atassi to contact Damascus, to inform him that he would not receive the delegation before my arrival.

“Atassi had informed me of the text of the ministerial meeting’s decision, which included several items, including, “requesting all parties to stop the fighting immediately” and “establishing symbolic Arab security forces, under the supervision of the League’s Secretary-General, to maintain security and stability in Lebanon… to replace the Syrian forces, while the Arab security mission ends at the request of the elected President of the Lebanese Republic…

“I immediately returned to Damascus. The director of Damascus airport kept the plane of the Arab ministers in the air until after my arrival, so I called Assad and told him about the latest developments. Assad refused to discuss any issue [with the Arab ministers] before the holding of a new Arab League meeting, in which I would present Syria’s stance.

“We agreed to hold a meeting the next day, that is, on June 10. Indeed, I went to the headquarters of the Arab League in Cairo, entered the hall, where the atmosphere was tense…

“I said in the session: “Oh Yasser, I came from Damascus with two handkerchiefs to wipe my tears because of the massacres that took place against you, which you were talking about with our brothers in the previous sessions... Yasser, your place is not here, but at the Rihani Theater (in Beirut) because you are an actor.” He interrupted me, saying: “I represent the Palestinian people.” I replied: “You are on a stage, and you are the enemy of the Palestinian people. Yasser, I advise you… your methods will destroy the Palestinian cause.”

“Then I turned to the ministers (...) and requested that the decision be taken without my presence to be reconsidered, so that any reference to the Syrian forces be deleted, emphasizing that the work of these forces comes within the framework of Lebanese sovereignty. After discussion, the council responded to my request.”

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.

Memoirs of Abdel-Halim Khaddam: I Told Arafat He Was Lying, Plotting Against Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria

Episode Eight