Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:33:06.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Planning—the Critical Neglected Link: One Hundred Years of Jewish Settlement in Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Efraim Ben-Zadok
Efraim Ben-Zadok
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Center for Urban and Regional StudiesTel-Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout one hundred years, Zionist ideology has dictated national settlement planning in Israel. In this highly dynamic society, political processes significantly affected the planning environment, and major planning goals were clearly derived from this reality, while being evaluated against social values. Negligence in the planning process was most critical in the formulation of conflicting long-range goals that impeded implementation. Goal conflict was especially harmful when economic planning was not as sound at a time when geopolitics, security, and defense goals were primarily pursued. Within the fundamental goals, incremental decisions—to construct new communities or extend existing ones—were also implemented. Antiplanning variables slowed down execution only to some extent, but their impact may increase in the future.

Analyzing the relationship between ideology and settlement implementation national planning concepts (through historical perspective), a subject that has received little attention in the past, contributed some analytical policy insights. Clearly, goal hierarchy or the domination of certain goals is sometimes required. However, in order to resolve conflicts, an effort should be made to decrease the differences in weights among goals. Thus, tension could be reduced to facilitate implementation. It is also possible to trade off one goal for another. Compromising among incompatible goals is a crucial matter to Israeli national settlement planning. There should be more balance in the allocation of resources economic objectives on one hand, and geopolitics, security, and defense goals the other. In addition, an attempt should be made to reduce the influence of antiplanning variables. Some of them, such as domestic or international political pressures, are more difficult to control; others are easier to influence. Specific attention should be devoted to achieving a higher professional level in planning, and more opportunity should be provided to experts to contribute input to decision-making processes.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 1985 , pp. 329 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Author's note: The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful comments made by Dr. Gideon Doron, Professor Jerome Kaufman, and Dr. Mel Marcus on earlier versions of this paper.Google Scholar

1 See, for example, Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., Israel Society (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1967).Google Scholar

2 Bilski, Raphaella and Galnoor, ltzhak, “Ideologies and Values in National Planning”, in Bilski, R., ed., Can Planning Replace Politics? The Israel Experience (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1980), p. 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Ibid., pp. 86–88.

4 Akzin, Benjamin and Dror, Yehezkel, Israel: High Pressure Planning (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1966), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

5 Howe, Elizabeth and Kaufman, Jerome, “The Values of Contemporary American Planners,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 47 (3) (07 1981), 266–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Davidoff, Paul and Reiner, Thomas, “A Choice Theory of Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 28 (2) (05 1962), 103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Some goals' conflicts are briefly described by Efrat, though from the political geographer point of view. See Efrat, Elisha, Settlement Geography of Israel (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv: Achiasaf Publishing House. 1981), pp. 260–66.Google Scholar For a general discussion on this subject, see Reichman, Shalom, “Three Dilemmas in the Evolution of Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Colonization, Urbanization and Reconstruction” (Hebrew), City and Region, 2 (3) (02 1975), 47–56.Google Scholar

8 Doron, Gideon, “Policy Analysis and Political Science: The Israeli Experience.” Paper presented at the 1982 IPSA Congress at Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar

9 Etzioni, Amitai, The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes (New York: Free Press, 1968).Google Scholar

10 Doron, “Policy Analysis,” pp. 4–14.Google Scholar

11 Akzin and Dror, Israel, p. 2.Google Scholar

12 Ibid.

13 Bilski, Raphaella et al. , “National Versus Sub-National Planning in Israel,” in Bilski, R., ed., Planning, pp. 333–36.Google Scholar

14 It should be noted that urban settlements are common in the new territories. For a further discussion on these two types of settlement after 1967, see Reichman, Shalom, “New Forms of Urban Settlement in Israel” (Hebrew) City and Region, 3 (4) (01 1977), 11–18. Another type innovated at that period was the pre-settlement (mizpe); thirty-three were established, not based on agriculture, under the program “Judaization of the Galilee.” Each includes seven to fifteen families, with plans for further expansion. The main purpose is close control of government lands in order to prevent their takeover by local Arabs.Google Scholar

15 Cohen, Erik, The City in Zionist Ideology (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Institute of Urban and Regional Studies, 1970).Google Scholar

16 Shachar, Arie S., “Israel's Development Towns: Evaluation of National Urbanization Policy,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 37 (6) (11 1971), 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Cohen elaborates on the economic dependence of the development towns' residents, the tight central control over local affairs, and the lack of residents' influences on the development of their communities. See Cohen, Erik, “The Power Structure of Israeli Development Towns,” in Clark, Terry N., ed., Comparative Community Politics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), pp. 180–81.Google Scholar

18 The dominant power in the ideological wave since 1967 was the religious social movement of Gush Emunim, which largely operated in the West Bank. On Gush Emunim and settlement, see Raanan, Tsvi, Gush Emunim (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Hapoalim, 1980). pp. 133–62.Google Scholar See also Rubinstein, Danny, On the Lord' Side: Gush Emunim (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House. 1982).Google Scholar

19 Much evidence on the current formation of the second pragmatic wave, specifically in the West Bank. is available in Israeli newspapers from 1982, including articles as well as advertisements by public and private builders attempting to attract potential buyers.Google Scholar

20 On the political-territorial perception until 1947, see for example, Reichman, Shalom, From Foothold to Settled Territory: The Jewish Settlement, 1918–1948 (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Publications, 1979), pp. 49–79.Google Scholar See also Oren, Elhanan, “The Settlement as Infrastructure for Independence” (Hebrew), Monthly Review, 29 (3–4) (03–04 1982); 12–33.Google Scholar For an intensive discussion on this aspect throughout history see Tavenkin, Yad, The Settlement and the Borders of the State of Israel (Hebrew) (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1975).Google Scholar

21 Nisan, Mordechai, Israel and the Territorites: A Study in Control 1967–1977 (Ramat Gan, Israel: Turtledove Publishing, 1978), pp. 87–88.Google Scholar

22 Yaniv, Avner and Yishai, Yael, “Israeli Settlements in the West Bank: The Politics of Intransigence.” The Journal of Politics, 3 (4) (11 1981), 1, 105–28.Google Scholar

23 Oren, “Settlement,” p. 31.Google Scholar

24 Brutzkus, Eliezer, Physical Planning in Israel (Jerusalem: Ministry of the Interior, 1964).Google Scholar

25 Efrat, Settlement Geography, pp. 176–77.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., pp. 184–88.

27 See, for example. Weitz, Ra'anan, “Settlement: Vision and Challenge,” Jerusalem (December 1982).Google Scholar See also Efrat, Settlement Geography, p. 188.Google Scholar

28 Kark, Ruth, “Jewish Frontier Settlement in the Negev, 1940–1948: Perception and Realization,” Middle Eastern Studies, 17 (3) (07 1981), 346, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Shachar, “Israel's Development Towns,” p. 364.Google Scholar

30 Altman, Elizabeth and Rosenbaum, Betsy R.. “Principles of Planning and Zionist Ideology: The Israeli Development Town,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39 (5) (09 1973), 316–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Doron, “Policy Analysis,” p. 2.Google Scholar

32 Thus, long-range conflicting goals are one characteristic of national settlement planning in Israel. Two other conflicts that were not elaborated within the limits of this study but should be identified are regional and sectorial conflicts. Regional conflict in Israeli settlements is based on traditional competition for resource allocation between the Negev and the Galilee. A recent interregional competition is between the Negev and Galilee on the one hand and the West Bank on the other, whereas the frustrated Golan Heights holds some tension against the latter. Furthermore, the conflict between the West Bank and the rest of the country extends, beyond economy, into sociopolitical and ideological subjects and has already been defined as a process of territorial cleavage formation in its latent stage. On this conflict, see Goldberg, Giora and Ben-Zadok, Ephraim, “Regionalism and Territorial Cleavage in Formation: Jewish Settlement in the Administered Territories,” State, Government and International Relations (Hebrew), 21 (Spring 1983), 69–94. Sectorial conflict could be identified traditionally between urban and rural settlements, or more recently, by the budgetary competition between the development towns and the settlements in the new territories.Google Scholar

33 Sherman, Neal. “From Government to Opposition: The Rural Settlement Movements of the Israel Labor Party in the Wake of the Election of 1977,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 14 (1) (02 1982), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 On the Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank in the context of international behavior, see Yaniv and Yishai, “Israeli Settlements.”Google Scholar