🔗 Share this article

So, which year is this? A US president, after months of implicit backing, has at last become involved to stop an military campaign from Israel that has reduced large areas of a city in the Middle East to rubble, resulting in numerous individuals dead and prompting worldwide anger.

This military action has been preceded by a series of strikes on Israel. Currently, under pressure from the US administration, the Israeli prime minister, a conservative politician with a talent for populist rhetoric and a strong feeling of historic Zionist mission, has agreed to a ceasefire.

Past Echoes

The year is not present day, but four decades ago. The location is not present-day Gaza, but the Lebanese capital. The US leader is President Reagan, not the current administration.

There are many differences between what happened in Lebanon over four in the past and recent developments in Gaza in the last 24 months. The militant assault of last year, which caused over a thousand and included 250 captured, shows limited similarity with the comparatively limited efforts of the PLO in the period prior to Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

Uncanny Similarities

Several similarities are remarkable. The president ultimately picked up the phone the Israeli leader, stating to him that events in Beirut was "a disaster" and saying the relationship between their states could be gravely damaged if the conflict persisted.

At that time, much as today, the conflict played out in real time on global media. Many reporters flew into Beirut to cover for the first time an regional battle without information control by the combatants.

Subsequent Developments

What happened following the conversation from American leadership and the halt in fighting in Lebanon is educational. The PLO, its factions and leaders were scattered across vast distances and a dozen countries.

American leadership then withdrew international forces – an infringement of the understanding with Arafat. The elected leader, the country's newly elected leader and Israel's preferred proxy, was murdered by Damascus operatives.

Regional Transformation

The same was true across the rest of the region. By the end of the 1970s, the increasingly non-religious and modern approaches that had seemed to offer the hope of a new future in the Middle Eastern nations years before were discredited.

The results of this emerged rapidly, in short order

Across the region, the Israeli state and the US now encountered adversaries who were much more unyielding, lethal and effective than the secular movements and independence advocates of earlier years.

Western Response

In the west, the consequences of this were perverse. Throughout the that decade, western analysts and government representatives had attempted to comprehend what caused militant radicalism.

Then, in the beginning of that decade, this ended. Government officials in the United States, the Britain and elsewhere were lost interest in "underlying reasons" of unrest.

Current Similarities

In recent days, reports indicate that today's officials told the nation's leadership that the country could not oppose international consensus and admitted territorial ambitions for a state.

This too was an repetition of 1982. In the consequence of the armed entry of that nation, previous leadership told Israel that the power of its armed forces alone could not "establish enduring settlement" and recognized "proper claims of the Palestinian people."

Yet a American-sponsored comprehensive agreement meant to address those grievances failed to progress. Overseas, national representatives observed impotently.

International interest in the Middle East waned. The state rejected accommodations. Later, there was the major unrest, and the creation of further armed organizations.

• The repetitions of the past provide serious lessons for current diplomatic initiatives
• Permanent settlements require confronting fundamental problems rather than temporary ceasefires
• Regional dynamics continue to change in complicated and frequently surprising ways