Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes recollections of influential players during 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut. 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
TT

Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)

On this day in 1982, Beirut was besieged by the Israeli army and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat boarded a ship that took him to his new exile in Tunisia. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s loss of its last front with Israel would leave its mark on the Palestinians and Lebanon.

As Israel tightened its siege of Beirut, Arafat took a secret decision to carry on fighting for six months until regional and international stances emerged. He was forced to leave Lebanon after 88 days, marking an end of what he described as the “longest Arab-Israeli war.”

The greatest disappointment to the Palestinian resistance and its allies in the Lebanese National Movement came from their Soviet ally. Moscow had refused to deliver a serious warning or send a destroyer off the Lebanese coast or a ship to evacuate the wounded.

Arafat’s insistence that he leave Lebanon by sea, not through Damascus, reflected the extent of the differences between him and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmed Jibril recalled that Arafat had bluntly told him that the Syrian leadership will not be credited for him holding out for three months in Beirut.

Asharq Al-Awsat will publish a series of features highlighting the significant developments and recollections of influential players during that heated summer of 1982.

From a building in east Beirut, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon observed Arafat as he boarded the ship that would take him to Tunisia. He wrongly believed that had broken the Palestinian resistance and that it would fade away in exile. The invasion failed in luring Lebanon to strike a peace deal with Israel. The current Lebanon has an even more hardline position towards Israel.

Against the backdrop of the war, Syria and Iran will lay the foundation of their alliance. Hezbollah would be born in Lebanon. Syria, which had withdrawn its troops from Beirut in wake of the invasion, would redeploy them years later, before again being forced to pull them out in 2005 after the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In the besieged city, I was determined to record the testimonials of influential political and security figures. I tried to obtain Arafat’s testimony, but he turned down the offer, saying he didn’t want the Palestinian people to be punished “because of his memories.”

In Tunisia, Arafat told me: “What do you want me to recount? To tell you about Sabri al-Banna (Abou Nidal), who was hosted by three Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus and Tripoli, and who was obsessed with assassinating Palestinians, not Israelis?”

“Do you want me to tell you about the so-called intifada in Fatah that was backed by Syria and funded by Libya? Or do you want me to complain about the practices of Palestinian groups that tarnished our image of resistance or led to our labeling as terrorists? I’m not saying that Fatah was faultless. We all made mistakes, but we always tried not to lose our way and lose our cause.”

“The Palestinian people have been punished a lot. They were punished for clinging on to their cause and for firing the first shot. (...) The PLO was punished for adopting a hard line and punished when it adopted a moderate approach. Do you want the Palestinian people to be punished because of my memoirs? I don’t want to open old wounds.”

“As I was leaving Beirut, a journalist asked me: ‘Where to?’ I replied: ‘To Jerusalem. We are preparing for our date in Palestine and Jerusalem. We don’t have any other place to be.’”

The KGB general and Iran

In 1980, Palestinian ambassador to Tehran and Fatah central committee member Hani al-Hassan received an urgent call to head to Beirut. Upon his arrival, Arafat told him they were headed to a meeting at the Soviet embassy. Hassan understood that he needed to voice Arafat’s views. He knew how influential the Soviets were in the Palestinian revolution. He knew of the consequences of refusing delicate Soviet proposals.

Other Fatah members at the meeting included Salah Khalaf (Abou Ayad) and Khalil al-Wazir (Abou Jihad). The Soviets were represented by General “Alexander” who was the KGB official overseeing operations in the Middle East. The insistence that Palestinian leaders, not their representatives, be present at the meeting meant that Moscow expected the talks to yield a decision.

General “Alexander” spoke about the situation in the region, especially Iran, in wake of the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan. He said the time had come for the Palestinians to cooperate with the Soviets to facilitate the Communist Party’s control of Iran. The Soviet Union wanted to expand its power in the region and Iran was a significant prize given its geographic location and resources.

Hassan was surprised with the proposal and asked to be excused from the meeting, but Arafat refused. Hassan said he would not stand against the Iranian revolution that had “offered us several major services,” referring to its severing of Iranian-Israeli relations that were forged under the shah.

Tensions soon erupted and the Soviet general declared that the Palestinians “won’t be able to do anything without us.” Hassan replied: “If the Soviets enter Iran, then Israel’s strategic value will grow a million-fold to the West. So, don’t even think about it. For our part, we will ensure that every effort is made to form good Iranian-Soviet relations.”

Hassan believed that the meeting exposed how the Soviets dealt with the situations in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and future conflicts in these countries.

Meeting in a Soviet forest

Another significant meeting was held years earlier. In the early 1970s, head of the PFLP’s External Operations Wadie Haddad met with KGB chief Yuri Andropov in a forest on the outskirts of Moscow. The meeting was held in utmost secrecy because Haddad at the time had been planning plane hijacking operations for years. Haddad asked for weapons from the Soviets, and they were smuggled to him off the coast of Aden, Yemen.

The first high-level contacts between Moscow and the Palestinian revolution took place in 1968 at the suggestion of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser and Arafat traveled to Moscow together on a secret visit. Two years later, a Soviet envoy met with Arafat in Jordan and the relations between the Palestinians and Soviets came out to the open.

Moscow realized the importance of relations with the Palestinians so it forged ties that allowed it in a few years to wield influence in Palestinian political and security decisions. Moscow formed close ties with the Palestinian left, including the PFLP, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leftists in the Fatah movement.

These relations led the Palestinian resistance and allied parties in Lebanon to rule out the possibility of Israel invading Beirut. It had already launched its invasion on June 6, 1982, and was advancing on the capital. On the day of the invasion, the Fatah and Lebanese National Movement met in Beirut. Present were Abou Ammar, Abou Jihad, Abou Ayad, Abou al-Walid, Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party George Hawi and Secretary General of the Communist Action Organization in Lebanon Mohsen Ibrahim.

They discussed the possibility that the invasion could go beyond southern Lebanon, especially with Sharon as defense minister. They never predicted, however, that the Israeli forces would advance on Beirut and reach its outskirts because Syrian troops were in the capital and any clash with the Israelis could lead to a full-scale war between them. They believed that Israel would not provoke Syria, an ally of Moscow.

They were proven wrong when the Israeli army was met with little resistance and eventually besieged Beirut. It was later revealed that the Soviets and their allies did not have information about the Israeli plans. The Syrians were also in the dark.

Meeting with Bashir Gemayel

When the Israeli forces reached the Chouf area in Mount Lebanon and appeared intent on Beirut, a secret meeting was held between Abou Ammar al-Hassan, head of the Lebanese Forces Bashir al-Gemayel and Lebanese military intelligence chief Johnny Abdo. Gemayel wanted to hold the meeting to deliver a message to Arafat that the Palestinians must lay down their arms and leave Lebanon. “I am ready to secure a safe and dignified exit. I want an immediate answer before the Israelis reach Beirut,” he said. Hassan suggested that they take their conversation to the balcony because they feared Abdo’s house would be wiretapped.

Hassan noticed how worried Gemayel appeared. He told him: “Let me speak to you frankly. I follow you and it is my duty to follow you. I know you have presidential ambitions, but you won’t achieve them this way. You were the one who paved the way for the Syrians so that they could strike the Palestinians. Now, you have brought in the Israelis so that they can strike them both.”

“At the end of this game, we will both be struck, and you will be finished. Lebanon is enticing. Neither the Israelis, nor the Syrians will pull out. You are opposed to both of them. Let me repeat, you are mistaken in thinking this is the way that will lead you to the presidency. Your odds will be better if you decide to side with us and the Lebanese National Movement.”

“Who will agree to hosting the Palestinian fighters? Jordan, Syria or others? He vowed that he will ensure that a small number of fighters would remain and they would answer to the Lebanese army. The game slipped from his hands when the Israelis reached Beirut.”

Hassan later informed Mohsen about the meeting. Mohsen then met with Arafat and Hawi. They were primarily concerned with determining whether Moscow could stop the invasion. Hawi, with his close ties to the Soviets, believed that striking the Palestinian revolution was a red line for both sides the Soviets and Communists. After a month or so, he realized that everything was permissible, and nothing was off limits. Arab countries had no way of influencing international powers.

Hawi was hoping Moscow would threaten Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. He hoped they would send a naval vessel off the coast of Beirut or at least evacuate the wounded. Soviet ambassador to Beirut Alexander Soldatov could promise nothing of the sort. Hawi kept relaying these disappointing stances to Arafat. Hawi and others could not believe that the Soviets would stand idly by as Israel invaded Lebanon.

Arafat was dealt a crushing blow during a meeting with Soldatov. The ambassador told Arafat to leave Beirut, even if he had to board an American destroyer. Arafat was incredulous and refused to leave. He would eventually relent when it appeared that the Soviets would not support him or stand against the Israelis.



US-Iran Deal Leaves Major Lebanon Questions Unresolved

Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
TT

US-Iran Deal Leaves Major Lebanon Questions Unresolved

Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)

A deal between Washington and Tehran that ends the Israel-Hezbollah war leaves many issues in Lebanon unresolved, failing to mention Israel withdrawing from the country or an end to Tehran's support for the armed group.

Under US pressure, Lebanese officials have been holding direct talks with Israel aimed at reaching a separate agreement on ending the hostilities, but Beirut appeared to have been sidelined with the overnight announcement on the regional conflict.

AFP looks at the deal and the questions it raises in Lebanon.

- What does the deal involve? -

Details of the agreement to end the Middle East war on all fronts have not been made public, but Iran and mediator Pakistan have both said it includes Lebanon.

Hezbollah drew the country into the Middle East war on March 2 with rocket fire at Israel to avenge the killing of Iran's supreme leader in US-Israeli strikes.

Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion that Lebanon says have killed more than 3,700 people and displaced more than one million others.

An official source told AFP that "Lebanon was not informed of the terms of the agreement or the time of the ceasefire".

Influential Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally and intermediary for the group, thanked Washington and Tehran for their "insistence on including... an essential and binding clause on halting the Israeli aggression on all of Lebanon".

Hezbollah on Monday had so far not claimed any fresh attacks on Israeli targets.

- Israeli withdrawal? -

Information circulating about the deal does not mention any Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Monday said forces would remain in the country indefinitely.

Karim Bitar, a lecturer in Middle East Studies at the Sciences Po University in Paris, said that "the deal does not seem to involve Israel, which immediately meant that it wasn't a party to it... So it's very unlikely that there will be an Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon."

Israeli forces control a strip of Lebanese territory running along the entire border.

A Western military source told AFP that Israeli forces had crossed the Litani River at several points, referring to the waterway running about 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the frontier but closer in some areas.

"Tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers" are in south Lebanon where they hold some established positions, the source said, adding that Hezbollah still had a presence there.

"It's the biggest invasion since their withdrawal in 2000," the source said, referring to Israel's previous pullout after some two decades of occupation.

Hezbollah says it sent reinforcements south of the Litani after the latest war erupted.

Under a 2024 ceasefire that followed a previous round of hostilities, Hezbollah fighters were supposed to withdraw from the area.

- What future for Hezbollah? -

Washington has pressured Lebanese authorities to disarm Hezbollah for months, but the accord makes no mention of the group.

"Iran doesn't seem to have committed to ending its support and financing for Hezbollah," Bitar said.

Military expert Riad Kahwaji said that "Hezbollah will not agree to give up arms... and this crisis will be protracted."

He said this could lead to political instability and even unrest, "especially now Hezbollah believes that through Iran it has emerged victorious from this agreement, and therefore is going to try and dictate its terms on who rules."

- Lebanon-Israel negotiations? -

Lebanon and Israel have been holding direct talks in Washington since April, seeking to end the hostilities and to separate Lebanon from the regional war.

A new round is scheduled for later this month.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said Monday that "we will redouble our efforts" through the Washington negotiations "to secure a full Israeli withdrawal."

But after the Iran-US announcement, some cast doubt on the effectiveness of the bilateral negotiations.

Bitar said that "Lebanon could find itself once again as a scapegoat that pays the price both of American amateurism, Iranian cynicism, Israeli hubris and... the lack of a clear strategy from its own political class."


Lebanese Mourn Homes, Livelihoods Destroyed by Israel in Southern City

 People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Lebanese Mourn Homes, Livelihoods Destroyed by Israel in Southern City

 People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)

When Kamal Kamal heard a ceasefire deal had been agreed between Iran and the United States, he rushed back to the southern city of Nabatieh only to find an Israeli strike had reduced his life's work to rubble.

The city, usually home to some 90,000 people before the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah erupted on March 2, was largely deserted as Israel pressed its military offensive in the area in recent days.

Kamal fought back tears as he stared stunned at the pile of rubble that used to be his roastery and warehouse for coffee and other products, after Israel pummeled the region with strikes and issued sweeping evacuation orders.

"When I opened it in the seventies, I was still a young man... now nothing is left," he said, leaning heavily on a walking stick and surveying the vast destruction.

"How my life has been spent in vain here!"

The war in Lebanon has been included in the framework deal to end the broader Middle East war.

But Lebanon's army on Monday urged displaced residents to delay their return to southern border villages, citing the "risk of Israeli violations and attacks".

Iran-backed group Hezbollah issued a similar warning.

Yet residents who have cautiously returned to Nabatieh have expressed dismay at the huge damage Israel inflicted on the city's neighborhoods and its famed market, where the roofing had collapsed and shops were devastated.

An AFP photographer also saw destruction to homes and businesses in the city, which has served as a hub of economic, social and services activity.

- 'Sorrow and grief' -

The city's municipality said in a statement that it had asked residents not to return "at the present time under any circumstances", citing the security situation.

The Lebanese army had set up a checkpoint at the entrance to the city, advising locals about the roads that they could take as intermittent artillery shelling rang out and smoke rose up.

The flow of residents to Nabatieh picked up later in the day, with people inspecting their homes and properties as heavy machinery worked to remove rubble and clear roads.

In one heavily damaged neighborhood, Rana Nasrallah surveyed her destroyed home, the rubble strewn with clothes, furniture and pot plants.

The 45-year-old had fled with her family to the coastal city of Sidon during the war.

"We grew up in this neighborhood. We used to play here as children. And here's where the older women used to sit and chat, the historic Nabatieh market before us... the landmarks that they perhaps wanted to erase," she said.

"As soon as the ceasefire was declared and before any official (Lebanese) announcement... we got going and came here. We couldn't wait any longer.

"We came to breathe in the scent of our land... even if there are no homes to shelter us and there is no work, still it's a relief for our souls."

In the face of the huge damage in Nabatieh and other south Lebanon towns and villages, including where Israeli forces have carried out sweeping demolitions, Nasrallah still expressed hope of returning permanently.

"Despite the sorrow and grief at seeing the city destroyed... we are filled with hope that we will rebuild," she said.

"Not once did we feel defeated or that we would not triumph, or that we would not return to rebuild Nabatieh."


Ghalibaf: Ambitious ‘Public Face’ of Post-Ali Khamenei Iran

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Ghalibaf: Ambitious ‘Public Face’ of Post-Ali Khamenei Iran

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)

Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has emerged as the key negotiator and one of the most high-profile figures in the epublic's leadership as it enters a new phase after the US-Israeli war.

A pillar of the Iranian establishment for some three decades and one of its most prominent non-clerical figures, Ghalibaf, 64, had spearheaded the war effort and led the high-stakes negotiating process that culminated with an agreement announced Monday to halt the hostilities.

Ghalibaf survived more than five weeks of US-Israeli attacks on Iran that killed supreme leader Ali Khamenei, top security official Ali Larijani and a host of other key figures.

He came into public view for the first time in weeks in April to lead the Iranian delegation in talks in Islamabad with the United States, meeting Vice President JD Vance, the highest-level contact between the two foes since before the 1979 revolution.

An image published on social media by Iranian embassies abroad put Ghalibaf center stage in the Iranian negotiating team, looking animated and gesturing with his hand, as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi busied himself with teacups.

The workings of the Iranian leadership without Khamenei, who dominated it for nearly four decades, remain unclear.

Khamenei's son Mojtaba was named as his successor but has yet to appear publicly after he was reportedly wounded in an airstrike.

"Following Larijani's assassination, Ghalibaf has emerged as the new public face of the regime's war effort and diplomacy," said Farzan Sabet, a managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

"But we shouldn't overstate the extent to which he's in the driver's seat: He still answers to higher powers in Tehran," he added.

These include Mojtaba Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards, the ideological arm of Iran's military, where Ghalibaf was a key figure as aerospace forces commander, Sabet said.

- 'Professional bargainer' -

While the trip to Islamabad was Ghalibaf's first appearance in public since before the war, he has kept a high profile online with almost daily social media posts, mixing commentary on recent developments and the negotiations with threats of harsh retaliation should the fighting resume.

His posts on X in idiomatic American English have garnered wide attention and raised questions over who is actually writing them, given Ghalibaf is not known to be a fluent English speaker.

Referring to threats of a ground invasion, a post on Ghalibaf's X account said on April 1: "You come for our home... you're gonna meet the whole family. Locked, loaded and standing tall. Bring it on."

The IranWire news site has said the posts appeared to have been written by a former adviser based in the United States, but this has not been confirmed.

While the Islamabad talks failed, The Washington Post reported that Ghalibaf left a striking impression on the US delegation after years when Washington never dealt directly with key Iranian decision makers.

Ghalibaf "impressed the American team as a refined and professional bargainer -- and potential leader of a new Iran", said the Post.

In a sign of his expanding sway, he was appointed in May to oversee Iran's vital relationship with China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil.

- 'Ambitious and opportunistic' -

Ghalibaf's varied experience, which spans military and civilian life, has seen him work as a commander in the Revolutionary Guards, Tehran police chief, Tehran mayor and now speaker of parliament.

It is unclear if he is fully trusted by the new hardline hierarchy of the Guards.

Known to be fiercely ambitious, he has stood for the Iranian presidency on multiple occasions but has never been successful, most notably in 2005 when ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, little-known at the time, took the job.

A qualified pilot, Ghalibaf is known for boasting that he is able to captain jumbo jets.

Human rights groups have accused Ghalibaf, in his various functions, of playing a key role in suppressing protests, from the 1999 student demonstrations to the 2009 Green movement that erupted after a disputed election, right up to the nationwide protests that peaked in January 2026, just before the latest war.

"As a politician, he's shown himself to be ambitious and opportunistic, but also cautious, a trait that has helped him advance his career to the top of the country's power structure without getting purged like so many others have been," said Sabet.