Transitional Justice: A Gateway to Rebuilding the Palestinian National Project

In light of the continuous Palestinian division for years, the crisis is no longer merely a political dispute between factions, but has transformed into a complex situation that has affected various aspects of daily life for Palestinians, from the economy and services to trust in national institutions. With the continuation of this reality, the need arises for a different approach that goes beyond traditional solutions based on power-sharing or temporary agreements, towards a deeper treatment of the roots of the crisis, which opens the door to considering the adoption of a transitional justice path as a comprehensive national entry point for reconciliation.

Transitional justice, as proven by the experiences of many countries, is not just a legal tool, but an integrated framework aimed at addressing the legacy of violations and conflicts through truth-telling, acknowledging mistakes, redressing harm, and reforming institutions. Countries like Morocco, through the Equity and Reconciliation Commission, have succeeded in achieving a delicate balance between the demands of justice and stability, by adopting a comprehensive approach that did not rely on widespread trials as much as it focused on recognition, redress, and rebuilding trust between the state and society.

However, applying these experiences to the Palestinian case cannot be done literally, as Palestine is not experiencing a "post-conflict" phase as in most transitional justice experiences, but rather a dual reality that combines internal division and continued occupation. This complexity imposes additional challenges, most notably the weakness of sovereignty, the duality of institutions between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the absence of a unified national narrative about the events of the division, in addition to the decline of trust among political actors, and the impact of regional and international factors.

Despite these challenges, transitional justice remains a promising framework if adapted to the Palestinian specificity. True reconciliation cannot be achieved without acknowledging the mistakes committed during the years of division, whether at the political, institutional, or societal level. Ignoring this stage or skipping over it will only lead to the re-production of the crisis in new forms, even if elections or political agreements take place.

It cannot be overlooked that the division is no longer merely an emergency, but has become linked to structures of political and economic interests that arose during its years, which makes overcoming it more complex. Some actors may not see direct interest in reconciliation, which necessitates thinking about realistic incentive mechanisms that encourage engagement in this path, instead of merely calling for it.

In contrast, the continuation of the division does not only mean maintaining the status quo, but entails an increasing political and social cost, represented by the erosion of the legitimacy of institutions, the deepening of the gap between society and the political system, and the decline in the ability to confront external challenges, which makes reconciliation not an ideal option, but an existential necessity.

After the failure of leaders from all factions to overcome divisions, it has become imperative for the Palestinian people to stand up, self-reflect, and hold the past accountable, while looking forward to building a solid political, social, and economic structure, capable of endurance and confrontation. The people, as both the ruler and the affected, are the ones who possess the legitimacy to hold the past accountable, guide the present, and shape a future that reflects their interests and rights, away from factional affiliations and narrow calculations.

One of the most important tools of transitional justice is the establishment of an independent national framework for truth-telling, which allows Palestinian society in all its segments to narrate their experiences and contribute to building a shared collective memory. The absence of a unified narrative makes each party captive to its own narrative, which deepens the division instead of overcoming it. Mutual recognition does not necessarily mean comprehensive legal condemnation, but aims to dismantle the residues of the past and build a new moral foundation for national relations, reflecting that the people are the true ruler and the affected party for whose interest and legitimacy reconciliation must be built.

In addition, reparations constitute a pivotal element in any reconciliation process. The effects of the division were not only political, but also humanitarian, as thousands of citizens were harmed at both individual and collective levels. Therefore, compensation should not be limited to the material aspect, but must include moral and psychological dimensions, restoring to the affected their sense of fairness and dignity, and contributing to their reintegration into public life.

At the institutional level, true reconciliation cannot be discussed without reforming the structures that contributed to entrenching the division. This requires restructuring political, security, and judicial institutions on professional and national foundations, away from factional affiliations, to ensure their neutrality and effectiveness. The continuation of institutions in their current form means that the causes of division remain, even if a political agreement is reached.

However, a fundamental problem arises regarding how to reconcile justice and reconciliation. The call for accountability may raise fears of opening the door to conflicts, while ignoring it may lead to a sense of impunity. Therefore, a flexible approach based on the principle of "recognition in exchange for mitigation" can be adopted, focusing on moral and political responsibility, without sliding into widespread trials that may impede the entire process. The goal here is not revenge, but to learn from the past and prevent the repetition of mistakes.

Moreover, the success of any transitional justice process requires the involvement of all components of Palestinian society, and not limiting it to an agreement between political elites. True reconciliation begins with society, through local dialogue initiatives, promoting a culture of tolerance, and involving youth, women, and marginalized groups in shaping the future. In this context, civil society plays an important role in creating spaces for dialogue, monitoring the implementation of any agreement, and ensuring its continuity.

Furthermore, an entire Palestinian generation grew up under division, without experiencing national unity, which threatens to entrench division as a permanent reality in the collective consciousness, which doubles the importance of urgent action to rebuild a comprehensive national narrative.

On the other hand, the impact of the occupation on this path cannot be ignored, as it constitutes a pressing factor that limits the ability of institutions to operate freely, and affects the entire political environment. However, linking internal reconciliation to the end of the occupation may delay it indefinitely. Therefore, it seems necessary to work on two parallel tracks: addressing internal division on the one hand, and continuing to confront the occupation through political and legal tools on the other.

In this context, elections cannot be seen as a magic solution to the crisis, as any democratic process not based on a genuine national reconciliation base may reproduce division instead of overcoming it, making transitional justice a prerequisite, not an alternative, for any successful democratic path.

Adopting a transitional justice path in Palestine does not mean reaching quick solutions, but requires a gradual approach based on building trust first, then moving to deeper steps. The process may begin with informal dialogues and de-escalation measures, before moving to stages of truth-telling, reparations, and institutional reform. This gradual approach allows for risk reduction, and gives parties an opportunity to test intentions and build common ground.

Ultimately, Palestinian reconciliation is not only about closing the file of the past, but about redefining the relationship between politics and society, and between authority and citizens. It is a moment of testing the ability of the Palestinian political system to transform from managing division to building unity, and from the struggle for power to partnership in the national project. Between these two options, the shape of the Palestinian future is determined, with constant emphasis that the people are the ruler and the affected, and that every reconciliation path must be built for their interest and legitimacy.