Search

Cultural and religious concepts of space inform contemporary social and political identities, confirming the inherent embeddedness of borders in social life. This study analyzes concepts of borders and bordering processes in socially heterogeneous and politically sensitive environments, as portrayed in classic Jewish texts. Jewish-legal rabbinic writings dated from the first to the fifth century reveal perceptions of both concrete and metaphysical aspects of a territorial homeland and of social-spatial bordering. These perceptions are echoed in contemporary debates of national sovereignty and borders. Like most legal systems, Jewish law prefers clear spatial separations and creates dichotomous spatial-legal distinctions. Yet textual analysis through lenses of geopolitics and law reveals nuanced concepts of borders and surprising perceptions of flexible and permeable borders despite this preference for clarity. This adaptability stands in contrast to widespread presumptions of rigidity of religion. Classic texts enrich social and political discourse in multi-cultural societies, particularly regarding holy territory. Their interpretation offer prospects of de-linking concepts of sanctity from sovereignty, thus presenting innovative channels to perceive and experience one's homeland. Paradoxically, religious texts offer pragmatic geo-political insights, which could enrich contemporary discourse, challenged by over-simplistic perceptions of borders and bordering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intermunicipal cooperation (IMC) in regions of social-economic and cultural heterogeneity may facilitate economies of scale and improve competitiveness and service delivery, but the insights of border and regional studies reveal its limitations in addressing disparities and generating development. This paper analyzes IMC prospects within peripheral regions of Israel, where municipal borders mark divides of prosperity, ethnicity and religion. Israeli policy promotes regionalism through IMC to facilitate intra-regional interdependence and development. Yet, institutionalized structures of cooperation have minimal impact on intra-regional disparities. Pervasive social borders undermine the prospects of IMC, as an insufficient substitute for necessary government investment in addressing historic roots of socioeconomic inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict resolution efforts of nearly seventy years between the Negev Bedouin and the State of Israel tend to focus on the main issue of disagreement--land ownership and its proof.1 Yet, beyond legal aspects of ownership, historical narratives, and culturally different values attached to land are used and manipulated in this conflict by direct and indirect players. Territorial conflict often lasts longer than the material benefits seem to merit due to added issues of identity and attachment, which develop over time.² Therefore, the legal lens is limited in addressing this complex: historic, political, social, economic, cultural, and ethnic conflict. Inter-cultural engagement between a modern state and a semi-nomadic people challenge the prospects of conflict resolution. This is similarly challenged in other contexts of the Middle East, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Political and ideological aspects, along with the factor of time, have further entrenched the regional Arab-Israeli conflict. These factors have increased the toll on the entire Negev population and environment--especially on the Bedouin population. The narrative of indigeneity is a recent strategy in this conflict, linking the Bedouin struggle with that of First Peoples, Aboriginals, and Native Americans.³ This context widens the narrow legal discourse currently employed in Israel regarding Bedouin land rights. However, the narrative of indigeneity has not been helpful in resolving this conflict. This context also contributes to prospects of comparative research. As the overall context of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict unfolds, the question of Bedouin indigeneity can also polarize and politicize the conflict--distancing the parties from urgent pragmatic compromises. Therefore, linking the narrative of indigenous people worldwide is unlikely a productive strategy in addressing the conflict of Bedouin land rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]