Noam Sheizaf sees
an ethnic dimension to Israel's election results:
A Netanyahu-Bennett-Lapid coalition will be the most “white” Israel has
ever had, for lack of a better word. The almost total absence of
Sephardi Jews in those parties is quite shocking, and deserves deeper
examination.
In fact, these were the most “ethnic” elections I remember, and it seems
that each ethnic group or sub-group had its own party, with the
clearest division being between Arabs and Jews, of course, but also
within those groups. With the risk of tremendous generalization, I would
say that poor Sephardi Jews voted Shas and those with higher income
Likud; Ashkenzi national-religious went with Bennett; Secular Ashkenazi
voted for Meretz, Livni and Lapid and so on.
Except maybe for Labor and Likud – the old forces which still have some
coalitions between them – it seems that the entire system is determined
by the interaction of two variables: ethnicity and economic status. The
party lists reflect that fact, despite the occasional variations, which
could be explained by the need to project a more inclusive image.
Lapid’s novelty and the deeper reasons for his success is the
understanding that the Ashkenazi upper-middle class now views itself as
another sector that needs to compete for more benefits, rather than as
the elite in charge of the entire society.
I wish I had more data about this. One thing I've heard quite forcefully over the past decade is that the division between European (Ashkenazi) and Middle Eastern (Mizrahi/Sephardic) Jews was losing its meaning in Israel thanks to steadily increasing intermarriage. I'm interested in whether that phenomenon has been exaggerated, or if it's just that there are enough older, non-intermingled voters for these terms to still have the degree of meaning Sheizaf gives them.
No comments:
Post a Comment