From imposed ceasefire line to international border: The issue of the green line between Palestine and Israel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The border between the state of Israel and a future Palestinian state has not yet been settled, and has instead been postponed to final‐status negotiations. The question of the location of the border, however, is critical. Will it be alongside the separation wall and fence which Israel is constructing? Or will it fall along the Green Line defined by the ceasefire agreement of 1949, prior to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? This paper shows, as a case study, how the Green Line, a temporary separation line determined by military considerations, changed over time into a de‐facto boundary, and later became regarded as an international border—thus highlighting that what may be intended to be ‘temporary’ in bordering processes can rapidly seem permanent. The paper also describes and analyses historical developments and narratives with respect to boundaries in Mandatory Palestine, and concludes with an analysis of the possible consequences of a failure to establish a new international border. It indicates that bordering processes are complicated matters that must take into account many factors, including narratives, changing ethno‐demographic realities and powerful interests, in contrast to ceasefire and separation lines, which usually relate solely to military matters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".