This issue discusses territorial aspects of the search for a
political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Our basic
proposition is that the conflict takes place between two national
movements, and that the territorial aspect is at the core of the
conflict and its solution. National ideologies, since the
Westphalia Treaty in 1648, promote the right of every nation to
sovereign control over its ancestral territory by means of the
nation-state apparatus. Territoriality, as a bounded unit of space,
may raise three main dilemmas: first, where should the boundary
between two nation states be located? Second, in what ways does
territory constitute and reinforce national identities? Third, what
are the implications of open versus closed boundaries on the
involved nation states? The current issue focuses on the third
question.
The characteristics of open versus closed boundaries are perceived
here to be multi-dimensional. They involve not only the military
aspect of the border, but also geographical, economic, political
and psychological aspects. Today, boundaries tend to open up as
part of the globalization process. Most environmental challenges
require international cooperation, economic development is highly
dependent on an opening to international markets, and military
closure of borders fails to prevent terrorist or missile attacks.
Socially, people tend to tour other countries and to migrate in
search of work, crossing boundaries more than ever in the past.
Psychologically, closed boundaries may reduce conflict, but also
interest in reconciliation, and leave each side with a feeling of
being closed off in a ghetto. New challenges caused by
globalization as well as the need to reconstruct boundaries based
upon greater trust between the two sides have a different impact on
Israelis and Palestinians in three spheres: the area of the
borderline itself, the economic development of towns and villages
in a wider border zone and the territory as a whole.
The papers demonstrate the contradictory moods among Israelis and
Palestinians concerning the characteristics of boundaries. For the
Palestinian writers the fence that is being built by Israel along
the border symbolizes a one-sided, rude attempt to close the border
as a mean of applying new forms of control. The Israeli papers hint
at a growing disappointment with the peace process and doubts that
the two sides are able to generate a reconciliation process without
external intervention.
Beyond any general conclusion that may be deduced from the
discussion, we may conclude that any attempt to close boundaries
between Israel and Palestine may be destructive to Palestinian
chances to close economic and psychological gaps in respect to
Israel, and has only a small chance of reducing Palestinian
motivation to continue fighting for full recognition. It seems that
only relatively open boundaries followed by reconciliation between
the two people, may set the foundation for a new future for both
Palestinians and Israelis. The most optimistic aspect of the issue
is the belief of many of the Palestinian and the Israeli writers
that a return to the negotiation table is both necessary and
possible, as the only means for separation along open boundaries
and reconciliation.