{"title":"以色列-巴勒斯坦冲突在法庭上的双重叙述:塑造对国际恐怖主义的认知","authors":"Dan Porat","doi":"10.1177/00220094241264089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":51640,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual Narratives of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict in Court: Shaping the Perception of International Terrorism\",\"authors\":\"Dan Porat\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00220094241264089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220094241264089\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220094241264089","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文重点关注雅典(1968 年)和苏黎世(1969 年)El Al 航空公司飞机遇袭事件引发的审判,以及这些审判在塑造以巴冲突相关叙事方面所起的作用。辩方将这些袭击事件描述为巴勒斯坦针对以色列的军事行动的一部分,从而将这些行为合理化为对以色列在被占领土上的行动的合法回应。这样,巴勒斯坦人试图将自己描绘成政治抵抗战士。相反,以色列人则将袭击描述为针对无辜平民的可悲的恐怖主义行为。他们的目的是反驳巴勒斯坦人提出的政治动机,强调这种袭击对国际航空旅行的潜在影响。这些审判标志着第一次专门针对国际恐怖主义的法律诉讼,将这些事件定性为恐怖主义行为,而不是合法的解放行为。这些审判及其结果和法院随后做出的判决在将这些行为定义为恐怖主义方面发挥了重要作用。随后关于劫持问题的国际公约进一步强化了这一观点,将这些行为固化为非法的恐怖行为。
Dual Narratives of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict in Court: Shaping the Perception of International Terrorism
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.