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

Is Iran Pushing Houthis Toward Military Action Against Washington?

Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
TT
TT

Is Iran Pushing Houthis Toward Military Action Against Washington?

Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 

As US military movements intensify in the Middle East and the possibility of strikes on Iran looms, Yemen’s Houthi group has continued military preparations, mobilizing fighters and establishing new weapons sites.

The Houthi mobilization comes at a time when the group is widely viewed as one of Iran’s most important regional arms for retaliation.

Although the Iran-backed group has not issued any official statement declaring its position on a potential US attack on Iran, its leaders have warned Washington against any military action and against bearing full responsibility for any escalation and its consequences.

They have hinted that any response would be handled in accordance with the group’s senior leadership's assessment, after evaluating developments and potential repercussions.

Despite these signals, some interpret the Houthis’ stance as an attempt to avoid drawing the attention of the current US administration, led by President Donald Trump, to the need for preemptive action in anticipation of a potential Houthi response.

The Trump administration previously launched a military campaign against the group in the spring of last year, inflicting heavy losses.

Islam al-Mansi, an Egyptian researcher specializing in Iranian affairs, said Iran may avoid burning all its cards unless absolutely necessary, particularly given US threats to raise the level of escalation should any Iranian military proxies intervene or take part in a confrontation.

Iran did not resort to using its military proxies during its confrontation with Israel or during a limited US strike last summer because it did not perceive an existential threat, al-Mansi said.

That calculation could change in the anticipated confrontation, potentially prompting Houthi intervention, including targeting US allies, interests, and military forces, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Al-Mansi added that although Iran previously offered, within a negotiating framework, to abandon its regional proxies, including the Houthis, this makes it more likely that Tehran would use them in retaliation, noting that Iran created these groups to defend its territory from afar.

Many intelligence reports suggest that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has discussed with the Houthis the activation of alternative support arenas in a potential US-Iran confrontation, including the use of cells and weapons not previously deployed.

Visible readiness

In recent days, Chinese media outlets cited an unnamed Houthi military commander as saying the group had raised its alert level and carried out inspections of missile launch platforms in several areas across Yemen, including the strategically important Red Sea region.

In this context, Yemeni political researcher Salah Ali Salah said the Houthis would participate in defending Iran against any US attacks, citing the group’s media rhetoric accompanying mass rallies, which openly supports Iran’s right to defend itself.

While this rhetoric maintains some ambiguity regarding Iran, it repeatedly invokes the war in Gaza and renews Houthi pledges to resume military escalation in defense of the besieged enclave’s population, Salah told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He noted that Iran would not have shared advanced and sophisticated military technologies with the Houthis without a high degree of trust in their ability to use them in Iran’s interest.

In recent months, following Israeli strikes on the unrecognized Houthi government and several of its leaders, hardline Houthi figures demonstrating strong loyalty to Iran have become more prominent.

On the ground, the group has established new military sites and moved equipment and weapons to new locations along and near the coast, alongside the potential use of security cells beyond Yemen’s borders.

Salah said that if the threat of a military strike on Iran escalates, the Iranian response could take a more advanced form, potentially including efforts to close strategic waterways, placing the Bab al-Mandab Strait within the Houthis’ target range.

Many observers have expressed concern that the Houthis may have transferred fighters and intelligence cells outside Yemen over recent years to target US and Western interests in the region.

Open options

After a ceasefire was declared in Gaza, the Houthis lost one of their key justifications for mobilizing fighters and collecting funds. The group has since faced growing public anger over its practices and worsening humanitarian conditions, responding with media messaging aimed at convincing audiences that the battle is not over and that further rounds lie ahead.

Alongside weekly rallies in areas under their control in support of Gaza, the Houthis have carried out attacks on front lines with Yemen’s internationally recognized government, particularly in Taiz province.

Some military experts describe these incidents as probing attacks, while others see them as attempts to divert attention from other activities.

In this context, Walid al-Abara, head of the Yemen and Gulf Studies Center, said the Houthis entered a critical phase after the Gaza war ended, having lost one of the main justifications for their attacks on Red Sea shipping.

As a result, they may seek to manufacture new pretexts, including claims of sanctions imposed against them, to maintain media momentum and their regional role.

Al-Abara told Asharq Al-Awsat that the group has two other options. The first is redirecting its activity inward to strengthen its military and economic leverage, either to impose its conditions in any future settlement or to consolidate power.

The second is yielding to international and regional pressure and entering a negotiation track, particularly if sanctions intensify or its economic and military capacity declines.

According to an assessment by the Yemen and Gulf Studies Center, widespread protests in Iran are increasingly pressuring the regime’s ability to manage its regional influence at the same pace as before, without dismantling its network of proxies.

This reality is pushing Tehran toward a more cautious approach, governed by domestic priorities and cost-benefit calculations, while maintaining a minimum level of external influence without broad escalation.

Within this framework, al-Abara said Iran is likely to maintain a controlled continuity in its relationship with the Houthis through selective support that ensures the group remains effective.

However, an expansion of protests or a direct military strike on Iran could open the door to a deeper Houthi repositioning, including broader political and security concessions in exchange for regional guarantees.

Features

The Gaza Ceasefire Began Months Ago. Here’s Why the Fighting Persists

Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
TT
TT

The Gaza Ceasefire Began Months Ago. Here’s Why the Fighting Persists

Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

As the bodies of two dozen Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes arrived at hospitals in Gaza on Wednesday, the director of one asked a question that has echoed across the war-ravaged territory for months.

“Where is the ceasefire? Where are the mediators?” Shifa Hospital's Mohamed Abu Selmiya wrote on Facebook.

At least 556 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since a US-brokered truce came into effect in October, including 24 on Wednesday and 30 on Saturday, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Four Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza in the same period, with more injured, including a soldier whom the military said was severely wounded when militants opened fire near the ceasefire line in northern Gaza overnight.

Other aspects of the agreement have stalled, including the deployment of an international security force, Hamas' disarmament and the start of Gaza's reconstruction. The opening of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt raised hope of further progress, but fewer than 50 people were allowed to cross on Monday, The Associated Press said.

Hostages freed as other issues languish In October, after months of stalled negotiations, Israel and Hamas accepted a 20-point plan proposed by US President Donald Trump aimed at ending the war unleashed by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack into Israel.

At the time, Trump said it would lead to a “Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace."

Hamas freed all the living hostages it still held at the outset of the deal in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and the remains of others.

But the larger issues the agreement sought to address, including the future governance of the strip, were met with reservations, and the US offered no firm timeline.

The return of the remains of hostages meanwhile stretched far beyond the 72-hour timeline outlined in the agreement. Israel recovered the body of the last hostage only last week, after accusing Hamas and other militant groups of violating the ceasefire by failing to return all of the bodies. The militants said they were unable to immediately locate all the remains because of the massive destruction caused by the war — a claim Israel rejected.

The ceasefire also called for an immediate influx of humanitarian aid, including equipment to clear rubble and rehabilitate infrastructure. The United Nations and humanitarian groups say aid deliveries to Gaza's 2 million Palestinians have fallen short due to customs clearance problems and other delays. COGAT, the Israeli military body overseeing aid to Gaza, has called the UN's claims “simply a lie.”

Ceasefire holds despite accusations

Violence has sharply declined since the ceasefire paused a war in which more than 71,800 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The ministry is part of the Hamas-led government and maintains detailed records seen as generally reliable by UN agencies and independent experts.

Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people in the initial October 2023 attack and took around 250 hostage.

Both sides say the agreement is still in effect and use the word “ceasefire” in their communications. But Israel accuses Hamas fighters of operating beyond the truce line splitting Gaza in half, threatening its troops and occasionally opening fire, while Hamas accuses Israeli forces of gunfire and strikes on residential areas far from the line.

Palestinians have called on US and Arab mediators to get Israel to stop carrying out deadly strikes, which often kill civilians. Among those killed on Wednesday were five children, including two babies. Hamas, which accuses Israel of hundreds of violations, called it a “grave circumvention of the ceasefire agreement.”

In a joint statement on Sunday, eight Arab and Muslim countries condemned Israel’s actions since the agreement took effect and urged restraint from all sides “to preserve and sustain the ceasefire.”

Israel says it is responding to daily violations committed by Hamas and acting to protect its troops. “While Hamas’ actions undermine the ceasefire, Israel remains fully committed to upholding it,” the military said in a statement on Wednesday.

“One of the scenarios the (military) has to be ready for is Hamas is using a deception tactic like they did before October 7 and rearming and preparing for an attack when it’s comfortable for them,” said Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesperson.

Some signs of progress

The return of the remains of the last hostage, the limited opening of the Rafah crossing, and the naming of a Palestinian committee to govern Gaza and oversee its reconstruction showed a willingness to advance the agreement despite the violence.

Last month, US envoy Steve Witkoff, who played a key role in brokering the truce, said it was time for “transitioning from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.”

That will require Israel and Hamas to grapple with major issues on which they have been sharply divided, including whether Israel will fully withdraw from Gaza and Hamas will lay down its arms.

Though political leaders are holding onto the term “ceasefire” and have yet to withdraw from the process, there is growing despair in Gaza.

On Saturday, Atallah Abu Hadaiyed heard explosions in Gaza City during his morning prayers and ran outside to find his cousins lying on the ground as flames curled around them.

“We don’t know if we’re at war or at peace,” he said from a displacement camp, as tarpaulin strips blew off the tent behind him.

Features

What to Know as Iran and US Set for Nuclear Talks in Oman

The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
TT
TT

What to Know as Iran and US Set for Nuclear Talks in Oman

The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER

Iran and the United States will hold talks Friday in Oman, their latest over Tehran's nuclear program after Israel launched a 12-day war on the country in June and Iran launched a bloody crackdown on nationwide protests.

US President Donald Trump has kept up pressure on Iran, suggesting America could attack Iran over the killing of peaceful demonstrators or if Tehran launches mass executions over the protests. Meanwhile, Trump has pushed Iran's nuclear program back into the frame as well after the June war disrupted five rounds of talks held in Rome and Muscat, Oman, last year.

Trump began the diplomacy initially by writing a letter last year to Iran’s 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to jump start these talks. Khamenei has warned Iran would respond to any attack with an attack of its own, particularly as the theocracy he commands reels following the protests.

Here’s what to know about Iran’s nuclear program and the tensions that have stalked relations between Tehran and Washington since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Trump writes letter to Khamenei Trump dispatched the letter to Khamenei on March 5, 2025, then gave a television interview the next day in which he acknowledged sending it. He said: “I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.’”

Since returning to the White House, the president has been pushing for talks while ratcheting up sanctions and suggesting a military strike by Israel or the US could target Iranian nuclear sites.

A previous letter from Trump during his first term drew an angry retort from the supreme leader.

But Trump’s letters to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in his first term led to face-to-face meetings, though no deals to limit Pyongyang’s atomic bombs and a missile program capable of reaching the continental US.

Oman mediated previous talks

Oman, a sultanate on the eastern edge of the Arabian Peninsula, has mediated talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff. The two men have met face to face after indirect talks, a rare occurrence due to the decades of tensions between the countries.

It hasn't been all smooth, however. Witkoff at one point made a television appearance in which he suggested 3.67% enrichment for Iran could be something the countries could agree on. But that’s exactly the terms set by the 2015 nuclear deal struck under former President Barack Obama, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew America. Witkoff, Trump and other American officials in the time since have maintained Iran can have no enrichment under any deal, something to which Tehran insists it won't agree.

Those negotiations ended, however, with Israel launching the war in June on Iran.

The 12-day war and nationwide protests Israel launched what became a 12-day war on Iran in June that included the US bombing Iranian nuclear sites. Iran later acknowledged in November that the attacks saw it halt all uranium enrichment in the country, though inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been unable to visit the bombed sites.

Iran soon experienced protests that began in late December over the collapse of the country's rial currency. Those demonstrations soon became nationwide, sparking Tehran to launch a bloody crackdown that killed thousands and saw tens of thousands detained by authorities.

Iran’s nuclear program worries the West Iran has insisted for decades that its nuclear program is peaceful. However, its officials increasingly threaten to pursue a nuclear weapon. Iran now enriches uranium to near weapons-grade levels of 60%, the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so.

Under the original 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% purity and to maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms (661 pounds). The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s program put its stockpile at some 9,870 kilograms (21,760 pounds), with a fraction of it enriched to 60%.

US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.” Iranian officials have threatened to pursue the bomb.

Decades of tense relations between Iran and the US Iran was once one of the US’s top allies in the Mideast under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who purchased American military weapons and allowed CIA technicians to run secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The CIA had fomented a 1953 coup that cemented the shah’s rule.

But in January 1979, the shah, fatally ill with cancer, fled Iran as mass demonstrations swelled against his rule. The Iranian Revolution followed, led by Grand Khomeini, and created Iran’s theocratic government.

Later that year, university students overran the US Embassy in Tehran, seeking the shah’s extradition and sparking the 444-day hostage crisis that saw diplomatic relations between Iran and the US severed.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s saw the US back Saddam Hussein. The “Tanker War” during that conflict saw the US launch a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea, while the US later shot down an Iranian commercial airliner that the US military said it mistook for a warplane.

Iran and the US have seesawed between enmity and grudging diplomacy in the years since, with relations peaking when Tehran made the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. But Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord in 2018, sparking tensions in the Mideast that persist today.