
50 years after Lebanon's civil war began, a bullet-riddled bus stands as a reminder
It was an ordinary day in Beirut. In one part of Lebanon 's capital, a church was inaugurated, with the leader of the Christian Phalange party there. In another, Palestinian factions held a military parade. Phalangists and Palestinians had clashed, again, that morning.
What happened next on April 13, 1975, would change the course of Lebanon, plunging it into 15 years of civil war. It would kill about 150,000 people, leave 17,000 missing and lead to foreign intervention. Beirut became synonymous with snipers, kidnappings and car bombs.
Lebanon has never fully grappled with the war's legacy, and in many ways it has never fully recovered, 50 years later. The government on Sunday will mark the anniversary with a minute of silence.
The massacre
Unrest had been brewing. Palestinian militants had begun launching attacks against Israel from Lebanese territory. Leftist groups and many Muslims in Lebanon sympathized with the Palestinian cause. Christians and some other groups saw the Palestinian militants as a threat.
At the time, Mohammad Othman was 16, a Palestinian refugee in the Tel al-Zaatar camp east of Beirut.
Three buses had left camp that morning, carrying students like him as well as militants from a coalition of hardline factions that had broken away from the Palestinian Liberation Organization. They passed through the Ein Rummaneh neighborhood without incident and joined the military parade.
The buses were supposed to return together, but some participants were tired after marching and wanted to go back early. They hired a small bus from the street, Othman said. Thirty-three people packed in.
They were unaware that earlier that day, small clashes had broken out between Palestinians and Phalange Party members guarding the church in Ein Rummaneh. A bodyguard for party leader Pierre Gemayel had been killed.
Suddenly the road was blocked, and gunmen began shooting at the bus 'from all sides,' Othman recalled.
Some passengers had guns they had carried in the parade, Othman said, but they were unable to draw them quickly in the crowded bus.
A camp neighbor fell dead on top of him. The man's 9-year-old son was also killed. Othman was shot in the shoulder.
'The shooting didn't stop for about 45 minutes until they thought everyone was dead,' he said. Othman said paramedics who eventually arrived had a confrontation with armed men who tried to stop them from evacuating him.
Twenty-two people were killed.
Conflicting narratives
Some Lebanese say the men who attacked the bus were responding to an assassination attempt against Gemayel by Palestinian militants. Others say the Phalangists had set up an ambush intended to spark a wider conflict.
Marwan Chahine, a Lebanese-French journalist who wrote a book about the events of April 13, 1975, said he believes both narratives are wrong.
Chahine said he found no evidence of an attempt to kill Gemayel, who had left the church by the time his bodyguard was shot. And he said the attack on the bus appeared to be more a matter of trigger-happy young men than a 'planned operation.'
There had been past confrontations, "but I think this one took this proportion because it arrived after many others and at a point when the authority of the state was very weak,' Chahine said.
The Lebanese army had largely ceded control to militias, and it did not respond to the events in Ein Rummaneh that day. The armed Palestinian factions had been increasingly prominent after the PLO was driven out of Jordan in 1970, and Lebanese Christians had also increasingly armed themselves.
'The Kataeb would say that the Palestinians were a state within a state,' Chahine said, using the Phalange Party's Arabic name. 'But the reality was, you had two states in a state. Nobody was following any rules."
Selim Sayegh, a member of parliament with the Kataeb Party who was 14 and living in Ein Rummaneh when the fighting started, said he believes war had been inevitable since the Lebanese army backed down from an attempt to take control of Palestinian camps two years earlier.
Sayegh said men at the checkpoint that day saw a bus full of Palestinians "and thought that is the second wave of the operation' that started with the killing of Gemayel's bodyguard.
The war unfolded quickly from there. Alliances shifted. New factions formed. Israel and Syria occupied parts of the country. The United States intervened, and the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks were targeted by bombings. Beirut was divided between Christian and Muslim sectors.
In response to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, a Shiite militant group was formed in the early 1980s with Iranian backing: Hezbollah. It would grow to be arguably the most powerful armed non-state group in the region.
Hezbollah was the only militant group allowed to keep its weapons after Lebanon's civil war, given special status as a 'resistance force' because Israel was still in southern Lebanon. After the group was badly weakened last year in a war with Israel that ended with a ceasefire, there has been increasing pressure for it to disarm.
The survivors
Othman said he became a fighter because 'there were no longer schools or anything else to do.' Later he would disarm and became a pharmacist.
He remembers being bewildered when a peace accord in 1989 ushered in the end of civil war: 'All this war and bombing, and in the end they make some deals and it's all over.'
Of the 10 others who survived the bus attack, he said, three were killed a year later when Christian militias attacked the Tel al-Zaatar camp. Another was killed in a 1981 bombing at the Iraqi embassy. A couple died of natural causes, one lives in Germany, and he has lost track of the others.
The bus has also survived, as a reminder.
Ahead of the 50th anniversary of the attack, it was towed from storage on a farm to the private Nabu Museum in Heri, north of Beirut. Visitors took photos with it and peered into bullet holes in its rusted sides.
Ghida Margie Fakih, a museum spokesperson, said the bus will remain on display indefinitely as a 'wake-up call' to remind Lebanese not to go down the path of conflict again.
The bus 'changed the whole history in Lebanon and took us somewhere that nobody wanted to go,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
ICE rejected Mahmoud Khalil's request to be detained closer to newborn son, emails show
After nearly three months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil made a request to move closer to his family. It was denied by the agency last week, according to emails reviewed Wednesday by NBC News. Khalil's legal team asked in late May that he be transferred to a detention center in New Jersey to be closer to his wife and newborn son. He has been held in a Louisiana ICE facility since March. ICE's policy requires that detained noncitizen parents or legal guardians, who are primary caretakers or have custody of minor children, be held in facilities close to their children The New Orleans ICE Field Office wrote that Khalil did not fall under the criteria of the agency policy and denied the request without explanation, according to the emails. 'I am declining your request that Mr. Khalil be transferred from the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana to a detention center in New Jersey,' an official at the field office wrote. Nora Ahmed, legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana, which is part of Khalil's legal team, called the decision 'cruel.' 'ICE's directive recognizes that the government should have no role in destroying the family unit, and yet that is exactly what is happening here,' Ahmed said. Neither ICE nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to NBC News' request for comment on the emails. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, a Michigan-born dentist, gave birth to the couple's son in April. Citing the ICE policy, his legal team reached out to the New Orleans office in hopes of getting him moved. The directive, issued in 2022, considers detained parents who have custody of their children as 'covered individuals' under the policy. It stipulates that covered individuals must be placed 'as close as practicable' to their minor children. It also requires ICE personnel to accommodate regular visitation between covered individuals and their minor children. 'There is no possible justification to detain Mr. Khalil at such a great distance from his minor child, in violation of ICE's own policy, when ICE maintains numerous detention facilities within driving distance of where Mr. Khalil's wife and infant son reside in New York City,' Khalil's counsel wrote in an email to the New Orleans ICE office. In an email to Khalil's legal counsel, an official at the New Orleans ICE office said that the detainee did not qualify as a covered individual. Khalil, who grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and was granted permanent U.S. resident status last year, became a widely recognized activist amid the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University last year. In March, he was abruptly arrested outside of his student housing on campus and detained before being accused by the Trump administration of leading 'activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.' He has not been charged with any criminal conduct. ICE previously rejected Khalil's request to attend his son's birth, court documents show. 'The most immediate and visceral harms I have experienced directly relate to the birth of my son, Deen. Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' Khalil said in a legal filing last week. Khalil met his son for the first time last month, his attorneys said, just before an immigration hearing.


Channel 4
3 hours ago
- Channel 4
25 killed in Gaza near aid site as Netanyahu government waits on crucial vote
In Gaza another 25 people have been killed near an aid distribution site, according to Palestinian reports – Israel's military said it was aware of reports of casualties and was investigating. The US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which operates the aid hubs, admitted there was 'not yet enough food to feed everyone in need in Gaza'. Meanwhile, the Israeli Government may face a vote later to dissolve the Knesset.


New Statesman
5 hours ago
- New Statesman
Blind support for Israel has muzzled Bari Weiss's Free Press
Photo byfor The Free Press In the United States today, there are few more powerful or influential media start-ups than Bari Weiss's the Free Press. Founded in 2021 and run through Substack, the Free Press today boasts more than 750,000 subscribers, at least 100,000 of whom pay. Weiss, 41 and a former New York Times columnist, is a media mogul for the new age, and her reporters and columnists regularly publish pieces that are widely praised or reviled – either way, the work is rarely ignored. Weiss and her publication have been popular with those who resented the leftward cultural drift of the 2010s and craved a home for combative centrism. Before Donald Trump returned to the White House, so-called heterodox intellectuals and writers were in the ascendancy, defending free expression against the excesses of the left. Weiss, their leader, denounced self-censorship and ideological conformity, and her news organisation's website vowed to uphold 'honesty, doggedness, and fierce independence'. The Free Press's site still reads: 'We always aim to highlight multiple perspectives on complicated subjects. And we don't allow ideology to stand in the way of searching for the truth.' But that isn't true. Weiss's Free Press has one red line: Israel. The organisation is unapologetically hawkish and anti-Palestinian, and has little to say about the attacks on free expression the Trump administration has unleashed on pro-Palestinian activists. Whereas other prominent heterodox writers and publications have been willing to criticise the Trump administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel, Weiss has stayed mum. Weiss's values have been made plain – she once declared herself 'guilty as charged' to being a 'Zionist fanatic'. She seems to have little interest in rethinking a conflict that has led to the deaths of more than 50,000 Gazans. Recent evidence of the Free Press's propagandising includes a column by Michael Ames which declared war-torn Gaza wasn't at risk of a famine – though he concedes 'it was never in doubt that the Israel-Hamas war brought immense human suffering to Gaza, including from food shortages'. There is something insidious about squabbling over the definition of a 'famine' while referring to 'food shortages'. At the time, a total Israeli blockade of aid deliveries to Gaza was approaching its third month. Israel has since allowed small amounts of aid into the Strip, but distribution has been marred by chaos and shootings that have killed dozens of Palestinians. Even centrist and conservative institutions have acknowledged the disaster that is unfolding in Gaza. Glenn Loury, the American economist who has long been a prominent voice among the heterodox elite, has come out against Israel's conduct in the war. So has Andrew Sullivan, the leading political commentator who has also railed against 'woke' (and Trump) a great deal over the last few years. The Free Press stands apart. The greater question is how sustainable this will be. Weiss found her success speaking to disaffected liberals who believed that on cultural issues the Democratic Party had swerved too far left. The Free Press was a clearing house for readers who were anxious and aghast over the dominance of identity politics in academia, the media, and elsewhere; the audience demand was real, and business for Weiss boomed. With the Democrats out of power and woke on the retreat, the Free Press's purpose grows less clear. It has relatively little to say about Trump's frontal assault on democratic institutions or his systematic violations of free speech. Meanwhile, its defence of the Israeli government holds little appeal for anyone who isn't a hardcore Republican or ardent Zionist. Neoconservatives have also found a home in the Free Press, which fills a niche but demonstrates how out of step the publication is with current trends. Fiscally conservative economics paired with muscular military interventions around the globe are not popular with Republicans or Democrats in America. Trump's ascension can be read, in part, as a repudiation of neoconservatism. Meanwhile, many of the Maga-curious independents who gave Trump another shot last year are drifting leftward again. The Trump chaos is too much to stomach. He has lost popularity faster than any president in modern times. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Weiss's ideology has prevented her publication from adequately covering the failures of the new US administration. Weiss is blinded by her uncompromising support for the Israeli government. Netanyahu can do no wrong. To punish Hamas, all of Gaza must be punished, and there's seemingly no limit to the amount of suffering inflicted on civilians in retaliation for the 7 October attacks. It's hard to think of another recent war that has lacked such a sense of proportion. The ultra-religious, ethno-nationalist right wing governs Israel, and that is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Any commentator who cannot acknowledge that reality is lying to their audience or lying to themselves. That is where Weiss and the Free Press have now gone. They cannot comprehend that Israel has abandoned all pretext of a two-state solution, that the annexation of the West Bank and ethnic cleansing in Gaza are Netanyahu's only goals, and that Israel may, in time, become a genuine pariah state – which would be disastrous for the Israelis themselves and do the Jewish diaspora, to which I belong, no favours. Or the Free Press can comprehend all of this, and simply does not care. [See also: Syria may be broken, but it's energised by hope] Related