Ethnic Divisions Within Unity: Insights into Intra-Group Segregation from Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Society

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The analysis of selected data with specific (empirical-contextual) research focus is properly and persuasively conducted. The findings yield novel insights regarding intra-group segregation within Haredi communities. For a customary academic paper, however, the following aspects seem to be insufficiently covered: 1. theoretical part of the paper is very short and superficial (more extended review of literature would allow more substantial discussion of research findings as well as their comparison with  Black-White segregation in U.S). 2. Also, this study could extend review of previous empirical studies of the segregation within Haredi communities so that the findings of this study can be assessed from the „expected/unexpected“ perspective based on patterns identified in previous research. 3. Discussion of findings as it stands is brief and to the point, but when broader review of literature on the topic is presented, the findings can be discussed so that the contribution of the paper to the general research theme(s) will be more evident.

Author Response

Comment 1: Theoretical Review

Comment:

I am wondering if the authors could discuss the cultural factors a bit more. In regard to homophily, is there any evidence that this segregation is primarily voluntary based on cultural preferences and if so, what reasons does segregation for this minority group seem to prefer. Most readers will not be familiar with Haredi communities.

 

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment. I have expanded the theoretical review in the Introduction (lines 52–58, 72–110) and further detailed comparisons in the Discussion section, which was greatly enlarged to include, among others, additional literature on segregation—specifically addressing Black-White segregation in U.S. metro areas. This enhancement strengthens the theoretical framework and supports a more nuanced discussion of our findings.

Comment 2: Review of Empirical Studies

Comment:

Also, this study could extend review of previous empirical studies of the segregation within Haredi communities so that the findings of this study can be assessed from the “expected/unexpected” perspective based on patterns identified in previous research.

 

Response 2:

In the revised manuscript, I have expanded our review of previous empirical studies on segregation within Haredi communities to help position our findings as either expected or unexpected relative to earlier work. For example, in the Discussion section I now include a detailed comparison with studies by Flint, Benenson, and Alfasi (2012, 2013) and Keren-Kartz (2024), which highlight the traditional patterns of intra-community segregation. Additionally, in the Introduction (lines 77–94, 104–110), I have incorporated references that underscore how our results conform to—or diverge from—these established patterns. These modifications provide a clearer contextual framework and directly address the reviewer’s concern regarding the assessment of our findings against previous empirical evidence.

Comment 3: Discussion of Findings

Comment:

Discussion of findings as it stands is brief and to the point, but when broader review of literature on the topic is presented, the findings can be discussed so that the contribution of the paper to the general research theme(s) will be more evident.

 

Response 3:

I have broadened the Introduction and expanded the Discussion, which now stands as an independent section rather than a subsection. This change provides a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of our findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article gives in-depth insight in the intra-group ethnic segregation which has significant societal influence. The author used large-scale publicly available national election data to quantify residential segregation among Haredi communities to examine the voting patterns for two Haredi political parties: Shas (Sephardic) and United Torah Judaism (Ashkenazi). This article raises questions about the factors influencing such segregation, its implications for social cohesion, and its relevance to understanding ethnic dynamics in diverse societies. The research findings presented by author are significant for policymakers and researchers addressing segregation in various settings.

The TITLE suggested, “Ethnic Divisions Within Unity: Insights into Intra-Group Segregation from Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Society”, contains information to enable the reader to understand what was done.

The ABSTRACT provides an accessible summary of the article. It clearly demonstrates the research question, the methodological approach, and the importance of the research for the field.

The KEYWORDS accurately reflect the content.

The INTRODUCTION clearly establishes the focus and purpose of the article. However, it does not provide a summary on recent research related to the understanding of the intersection of ethnicity, religion, and political behaviour in shaping community structure. The author should demonstrate the novelty of his/her research.

The text of METHODS is detailed enough. This section explains the way the study was designed and carried out. It includes a concise description of the data collection and procedures how the analysis was conducted.

In the section of RESULTS and DISCUSSION, the author summarized the collected data to identify voting patterns from multiple Haredi-majority areas. The dataset generated by the author provides new insights into levels of ethnic segregation within Israel’s Haredi communities. I found particularly interesting the comparison with Black-White segregation in USA metro/micro areas while there are differences in methodology, including variations in geographic units, data sources, and the specific metrics used in analysis. The sub-section DISCUSSION should be more rigorous examination of the results. It should present implications of the results within the context of the overall research; however, it does not clarify where results fit in the current academic literature.

In the CONCLUSION, the main argument of the paper is accurately restated. The conclusions are consistent with the arguments presented.

Author Response

Comment 1: Introduction and Novelty

Comment:

The INTRODUCTION clearly establishes the focus and purpose of the article. However, it does not provide a summary on recent research related to the understanding of the intersection of ethnicity, religion, and political behaviour in shaping community structure. The author should demonstrate the novelty of his/her research.

 

Response 1:

The revised Introduction now includes much wider summary of recent research on the intersection of ethnicity, religion, and political behavior. This addition explicitly demonstrates the novelty of our research by using granulated data. Lines 72-85 clearly explain the novelty of the presented study, contextualizing our findings within current debates and highlighting how our approach, using Knesset voting patterns, offers fresh insights into residential segregation in Haredi communities.

Comment 2: Discussion and Rigorous Analysis

Comment:

The sub-section DISCUSSION should be more rigorous examination of the results. It should present implications of the results within the context of the overall research; however, it does not clarify where results fit in the current academic literature.

 

Response 2:

I find this remark the most helpful in the reviewing process. The manuscript was restructured and now, the Discussion is a Section on its own. It has been revised and greatly extended to provide a more rigorous analysis of our results. It now clearly situates our findings within current academic literature—including comparisons with Black-White segregation in U.S. metro areas—and outlines the broader implications for understanding intra-group segregation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. This is an interesting and innovative study that contributes to understanding segregation processes by studying a specialized group which may illustrate voluntary segregation that is less well-known. However, the author could discuss more about the underlying methods because most readers will not be familiar with Haredi communities in Israel. In particular, the authors could clarify what is a Haredi voting box. How do the authors know that non-Haredi voters cannot use them? And how do the authors infer that any one who votes in a non-Haredi box is not Haredi.
2. The authors could discuss more thoroughly about the objectives of the paper in regard to studying “micro-segregation” because most readers will not know about the districting of Israeli towns and cities. The authors could explain further about how they know the percent Haredi in the entire city but that they are trying to ascertain where and in what size city blocks that the Haredi reside. Why is “micro-segregation” significant (beyond voting behavior)?
3. The authors may wish to clarify that Haredi may also vote for UTJ and Shas parties. How does this affect the assumptions underlying the calculation of the indexes of dissimilarity?
4. I am wondering if the authors could discuss the cultural factors a bit more. In regard to homophily, is there any evidence that this segregation is primarily voluntary based on cultural preferences and if so, what reasons does segregation for this minority group seem to prefer. Most readers will not be familiar with Haredi communities. A contribution of this paper would seem to be to document “voluntary” segregation. On what basis can the readers conclude that the observed segregation is really “voluntary”?
5. Is there are other evidence of "xenophobic" attitudes in the sense that others live leave those areas (i.e., similar to "white flight" in the US case) where this religious minority enters? What are their reasons or motivations?
6. I am not sure that Figures 2 and 3 are needed since the information could be more compactly provided in tables. Especially the scatterplots in Figure 3 do not seem to convey any needed information beyond the score of the correlation itself.
7. The authors may wish to check the robustness of their results using the separation index. As discussed by Fossett (2017), the index of dissimilarity (although widely used) engenders bias for groups that are small in size. The computed index of dissimilarities for Haredi seem rather small (i.e., .04 to .13 on page 7) compared to White-Black dissimilarities for US cities (e.g., 462 on page 7). Why such small levels of segregation merit publication could be made more explicit.

 

 

Reference

Fossett, Mark. New methods for measuring and analyzing segregation. Springer Nature, 2017.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mark+fossett&btnG=

Author Response

Comment 1:

I am wondering if the authors could discuss the cultural factors a bit more. In regard to homophily, is there any evidence that this segregation is primarily voluntary based on cultural preferences and if so, what reasons does segregation for this minority group seem to prefer. Most readers will not be familiar with Haredi communities.

 

Response 1:

I have provided additional background in the Introduction that highlights how clustering around religious institutions suggests that segregation is largely voluntary, driven by cultural preferences to preserve communal identity (McCauley 2014; Young et al. 2023). Furthermore, I have expanded the Discussion into an independent section where a brief discussion of cultural factors further elaborates on these dynamics.

Comment 2:

Is there are other evidence of “xenophobic” attitudes in the sense that others live leave those areas (i.e., similar to “white flight” in the US case) where this religious minority enters? What are their reasons or motivations?

 

Response 2:

These points are now discussed extensively in the Introduction (lines 77–85), where we highlight that segregation appears primarily voluntary and is driven by strong cultural preferences for preserving religious traditions and communal cohesion. Further elaboration on these dynamics can be found in the expanded Discussion. While the question of whether non-Haredi residents leave neighborhoods as they become increasingly Haredi-populated is indeed interesting, it falls beyond the scope of this study.

Comment 3:

The authors may wish to check the robustness of their results using the separation index. As discussed by Fossett (2017) the index of dissimilarity although widely used engenders bias for groups that are small.

 

Response 3:

I acknowledge Fossett’s (2017) concern, and that of Fraga (2016) (lines 86-94). As stated in the revised version, our study analyzes two groups of comparable size, which minimizes these concerns.

Comment 4:

the author could discuss more about the underlying methods

because most readers will not be familiar with Haredi communities in Israel. In particular, the authors could clarify what is a Haredi voting box. How do the authors know that non-Haredi voters cannot use them? And how do the authors infer that any one who votes in a non-Haredi box is not Haredi.

 

Response 4:

I have clarified and extended the existing definition in lines 128–133 to address these methodological points. While providing a comprehensive overview of Haredi society is beyond the scope of this study, I have included references to extensive literature on the subject to offer interested readers additional context, thereby balancing the need for background with a focused examination of the current research problem.

Comment 5:

The authors could discuss more thoroughly about the objectives of the paper in regard to studying “micro-segregation” because most readers will not know about the districting of Israeli towns and cities. The authors could explain further about how they know the percent Haredi in the entire city but that they are trying to ascertain where and in what size city blocks that the Haredi reside. Why is “micro-segregation” significant (beyond voting behavior)?

 

Response 5:

The percentage of Haredi residents in each city is derived from data provided by the Israel Democracy Institute, as is clearly indicated in lines 120–121 and in the Table 2 caption, lines 234–238. Regarding the significance of studying micro-segregation, our objective is to pinpoint where and in what size city blocks the Haredi reside, rather than merely reporting overall city-level percentages. By analyzing voting behavior at the ballot box level, we can identify distinct residential clusters that reveal important patterns beyond aggregated data. For example, the revised Discussion section (lines 329–342) states:

“The observed dissimilarity indices … indicate separation that is not only statistically significant …, but is also practically meaningful: as it indicates that even modest deviations from an even distribution correspond to […] residential clustering, and that these patterns persist and evolve over time”

 

Additionally, the final paragraph of the paper emphasizes:

“By empirically demonstrating intra-community ethnic segregation and linking these patterns to broader theoretical frameworks, this study advances our understanding of the interplay between ethnicity, religion, and urban dynamics. It provides a foundation for future investigations into the mechanisms that sustain segregation and their implications for urban planning, community cohesion, and social integration.”

Comment 6:

The authors may wish to clarify that Haredi may also vote for UTJ and Shas parties. How does this affect the assumptions underlying the calculation of the indexes of dissimilarity?

 

Response 6:

This is an excellent point. I have added the following clarification (lines 140–146):

 

“It is important to note that any Haredi citizen is free to vote for any party—indeed, some Ashkenazi voters may cast ballots for Shas and some Sephardic Haredim for UTJ. Historical data, however, suggest that such cross-voting is relatively rare within these homogeneous boxes (Curiel and Zeedan 2024; Malovicki-Yaffe, Myers, and Lehrfield-Trop 2024). Consequently, while this possibility could introduce some noise into the calculation of dissimilarity indexes, its impact is likely minimal, and the assumption of near-exclusive Haredi voting remains a robust basis for the analysis.”

Comment 7:

I am wondering if the authors could discuss the cultural factors a bit more. In regard to homophily, is there any evidence that this segregation is primarily voluntary based on cultural preferences and if so, what reasons does segregation for this minority group seem to prefer. Most readers will not be familiar with Haredi communities. A contribution of this paper would seem to be to document “voluntary” segregation. On what basis can the readers conclude that the observed segregation is really “voluntary”?

 

Response 7:

The first three paragraphs of the revised, enlarged Discussion section (lines 315–342) thoroughly address this question. These paragraphs provide reflections on the findings and include references to key sources that support the conclusion that the segregation is primarily voluntary.

Comment 8:

Is there are other evidence of “xenophobic” attitudes in the sense that others live leave those areas (i.e., similar to “white flight” in the US case) where this religious minority enters? What are their reasons or motivations?

 

Response 8:

I don’t think this study can provide answers to these questions.

Comment 9:

I am not sure that Figures 2 and 3 are needed since the information could be more compactly provided in tables. Especially the scatterplots in Figure 3 do not seem to convey any needed information beyond the score of the correlation itself.

 

Response 9:

I agree that the information in Figure 2 can be conveyed in a table. However, in a small, and non-representing “field study”, I received a feedback that the graph is easier to understand in this particular case, especially the comparison between the control randomized simulations and the actual numbers. Having said that, if the editorial decision will be to replace the figure with a table, I will not have strong opinion about that.

Regarding Figure 3. As famously demonstrated by the “Datasaurus” dataset (Matejka & Fitzmaurice, 2017), statistical metrics can mask dramatically different underlying distributions. By including these scatterplots, we let readers quickly see if there are outliers, clusters, or nonlinear relationships that a single correlation value might overlook.

Comment 10:

The authors may wish to check the robustness of their results using the separation index. As discussed by Fossett (2017), the index of dissimilarity (although widely used) engenders bias for groups that are small in size. The computed index of dissimilarities for Haredi seem rather small (i.e., .04 to .13 on page 7) compared to White-Black dissimilarities for US cities (e.g., 462 on page 7). Why such small levels of segregation merit publication could be made more explicit.

 

Response 10:

The revised manuscript now includes an extensive discussion regarding both the limitations of the separation index and the interpretation of the relatively small dissimilarity values observed. We acknowledge that these values are lower than those typically reported for White-Black segregation in U.S. cities. However, we argue that this difference is reflective of fundamentally different segregation mechanisms. Our analysis, supported by control randomized simulations (see Figure 2) and detailed discussion in the revised Discussion section (lines 329–342), demonstrates that these small indices capture significant intra-community dynamics. Thus, the observed segregation levels merit publication as they provide novel insights into the interplay between ethnicity, religion, and urban dynamics, and lay the groundwork for further investigations into the mechanisms sustaining such segregation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised the manuscript as was suggested, the paper is ready for publication as it stands.