The politics of maps: Constructing national territories in Israel

Abstract

Within the last 2000 years the land demarcated by the Mediterranean Sea to the west and the Jordan Valley to the east has been one of the most disputed territories in history. World powers have redrawn its boundaries numerous times. Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 within British Mandate Palestine, Palestinians and Israelis have disagreed over the national identity of the land that they both inhabit. The struggles have extended from the battlefields to the classrooms. In the process, different national and ethnic groups have used various sciences, ranging from archeology to history and geography, to prove territorial claims based on their historical presence in the region. But how have various Israeli social and political groups used maps to solidify claims over the territory? In this paper we bring together science studies and critical cartography in order to investigate cartographic representations as socially embedded practices and address how visual rhetoric intersects with knowledge claims in cartography. Before the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the Israeli government and the Jewish National Fund produced maps of Israel that established a Hebrew topography of the land. After 1967, Israel’s expanded territorial control made the demarcation of its borders ever more controversial. Consequently, various Israeli interest groups and political parties increasingly used various cartographic techniques to forge territorial spaces, demarcate disputed boundaries, and inscribe particular national, political, and ethnic identities onto the land.

Los mapas históricos como instrumentos para la enseñanza de la historia

“…Tempo & Argumento conformación de un Estado y a la consolidación de un territorio imaginado por los nacionales (BILLIG, 1995;KOSONEN, 2008;LEUENBERGER, SCHNELL, 2010;LOIS, 2012;NOGUÉ, 1998;RADCLIFE, 1998).…”

“…Las investigaciones que han indagado los vínculos entre geografía y construcción del sentimiento de nacionalidad han sido variadas y, aunque con diferencias teóricas, casi todas muestran sólidamente que los conocimientos propios del campo de la geografía y las representaciones del espacio elaboradas contribuyeron a la formación de identidades nacionales en varios países del mundo (DEL CASTILLO, 2011;HERB, 1997;KOSONEN, 2008;LEUENBERGER, SCHNELL, 2010;LOIS, 2014).…”

Producing World Heritage in the White City Tel Aviv

“…Indeed, the assumption of the state as a unified actor elides the various convergence and contestations between different factions within the state (Cerny , pp.619–620). Leuenberger and Schnell () sharpen this point in their juxtaposition of Israeli state maps proffered by different political parties, tourist outfits, and peace activist groups over time. Their comparison highlights how territories and spatial imaginaries – intellectual framing of a space (i.e., as a sovereign entity, illegal settlement, a “buffer zone”, DMZ, etc.)…”

“…– are produced through processes of inscription and representation in cartography. Their analysis leads to a salient conclusion: “mapping practices are also no longer under the purview of the state, academia, and publishing houses alone, as computer technology and cartographic software have led to various ‘alternate mapping practices’”, each of which make “certain territorial representations visible, definable, and categorizable” to produce not merely “spatial‐territorial imaginations” (assumed fixity in “legible” space), but to effectively shape space, or in this case, sites of historical value (Leuenberger and Schnell , pp.833–834).…”

Scientific Controversies

“…There has been particular interest in controversies involving health and medicine, such as contentious new disease categories (Murphy, 2006), and in the activities of patient activist groups (Silverman, 2013). Wherever there are sociotechnical disputessuch as, for instance, in mapping the state (Carroll, 2006;Leuenberger and Schnell, 2010)one can study the movement between openness and closure as powerful social choices get embedded within material structures and procedures. Wherever there are sociotechnical disputessuch as, for instance, in mapping the state (Carroll, 2006;Leuenberger and Schnell, 2010)one can study the movement between openness and closure as powerful social choices get embedded within material structures and procedures.…”