Borders and identity comprise the foundation of the modern nation-state. Nevertheless, as Adriana Kamp asserts, studies have not yet examined the affinity between the two concepts; putting borders in place is generally considered as part of building a nation-state, while constituting one’s identity is thought of as an aspect of nation-building. Kamp describes the difference between borders and identity in terms of hardware (the border) and software (the identity), and stresses the border’s cultural and ideological importance, which diverges from the formal role of Land.

In the Israeli context, land is both a motherland and an historical home (see Gurevitz and Aranne). After the 1948 war, Israel applied the principle of territorial sovereignty on its land and employed rhetorical and institutional mechanisms that generated commitment to guarding the border and tightening bonds with the land (Kamp 19). The spatial language, grounded on patriotism, glorified the area of Israel’s territory, encouraging Israelis to travel and acquire knowledge about the country (Almog). The Six Day War in 1967 introduced a new concept—the Green Line—which is the border line between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories. A border presumably signifies the separation between the “here” and the “there,” between “my country” and a foreign country, which can be a hostile one. And yet, in the context of the Occupied Territories, the borders become blurred, creating a twilight zone, a liminal region, which is simultaneously internal and external, apparently temporary but