|M.Sc Student||Enden Erela|
|Subject||Israel's National Land Policy Analysis of Interest Group Po|
|Department||Department of Architecture and Town Planning||Supervisor||Professor Emeritus Rachelle Alterman|
Past attempts to evaluate Israel’s land policy (Weis Committee 1964, The Goldenberg Report 1986) did not bring about the expected modification, and public awareness towards this issue.
The major objective of this research is to try to evaluate Israel’s land policy in a systematic manner and to suggest alternative option to the present policy. By that we hope to increase the public awareness towards the desired use of state lands.
Since land policy is public policy, we- reviewed the public’s positions by means of an interview questionnaire. Forty people from 25 different interests groups were interviewed: decision makers, clients and a combination of the two. It was assumed that different interests groups hold different positions and that in general land issues were divided into issues of general consensus and issues that are controversial.
After summing up the questionnaires, a variety of positions was suggested on various land issues. It appears from the analysis that there is general acceptance of the bane principle of the continuation of public ownership of most of the state’s land. Furthermore, most of the interviewees supported the principle of long term leaseholds. It was also found that there is no tendency to alter the policy-regarding agricultural lends. The present policy should be pursued.
It can be summarized that there is a clear tend to continue the national ownership of most of the state’s land. This public ownership is used as a mean of planning, developing and securing the land for the countries internal goals. No drastic change is therefore expected in the formulation of a new land policy. most of the interviewees feel, however, that there is a need to modify certain components in Israel’ s national land policy so as to significantly improve the execution of the public policies.
These conclusions might explain the rejection of the Goldenberg Report (1986) that suggested an alternative to the present land policy. In that report, a positive attempt to solve serious problems in land policy was made but on the other hand it suggested extreme solutions to the issue of public land acquisition which would seriously jeopardize public ownership of the state’s lands. This principle was opposed by most of the interviewees in this research.