Emilia Vassiliades*

Read Part I here.

Building a Historical Record and Establishing the Truth

Truth and historical record are complex and nuanced concepts in Israel-Palestine.[1] Narrative bridging and reformulation is required to address opposing and irreconcilable claims of history that underpin cyclical violence.[2] For example, Israel justifies the events of Al Nakba (1948) and the Six-Day War (1967) as an attempt to reclaim their homeland and essential defensive actions against antisemitism, divorcing themselves from responsibility for the subsequent large-scale displacement of Palestinians.[3] Masalha and Glazer have contended that this is one part of a wider effort to erase Palestinian claims to self-determination by curating a single-narrative version of historical events.[4] Conversely, many Palestinians perceive the Second Intifada and the 7 October attacks as necessary acts of resistance, while Israel characterises them as unprovoked terrorist acts.[5] Therefore, it is imperative to implement discursive mechanisms that forge an authoritative bridging of historical records as a prerequisite to enduring peace and reconciliation. Thus, acknowledging the entire ambit of victims’ suffering. Kiss corroborates that truth commissions present the opportunity to generate authoritative historical accounts, affirming the value of ‘narrative’ and ‘forensic’ forms of truth.[6] In this way, a truth commission offers the greatest opportunity to begin to reclaim distorted narratives of truth and establish an authoritative historical record.