Dual Narratives of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict in Court: Shaping the Perception of International Terrorism

Abstract

This article focuses on trials stemming from attacks on El Al aircraft in Athens (1968) and Zurich (1969) and their role in shaping the narrative surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The defense framed the attacks as part of a Palestinian military campaign against Israel, thus rationalizing the behavior as a legitimate response to its actions in occupied territories. In doing so, the Palestinians sought to portray themselves as political resistance fighters. Conversely, the Israelis depicted the attacks as deplorable acts of terrorism that targeted innocent civilians. Their objective was to counter the political motivations put forward by the Palestinians and emphasize the potential repercussions of such attacks on international air travel. These trials marked the first instances of legal proceedings specifically addressing international terrorism, framing these incidents as acts of terrorism rather than legitimate acts of liberation. The trials, along with their outcomes and the subsequent verdicts issued by the courts, played a significant role in defining these actions as terrorism. Subsequent international conventions on hijacking further reinforced this perspective, solidifying them as illegitimate acts of terror.