between the individual and the community: …bennya/publications/ijurr2013...between the individual...

Between the Individual and the Community:Residential Patterns of the HarediPopulation in Jerusalem

NURIT ALFASI, SHLOMIT FLINT ASHERY andITZHAK BENENSON

AbstractThis article examines how different levels of internal organization are reflected in theresidential patterns of different population groups. In this case, the Haredi communitycomprises sects and sub-sects, whose communal identity plays a central role in everydaylife and spatial organization. The residential preferences of Haredi individuals arestrongly influenced by the need to live among ‘friends’ — that is, other members of thesame sub-sect. This article explores the dynamics of residential patterns in two ofJerusalem’s Haredi neighbourhoods: Ramat Shlomo, a new neighbourhood on the urbanperiphery, and Sanhedria, an old yet attractive inner-city neighbourhood. We reveal twosegregation mechanisms: the first is top-down determination of residence, found inrelatively new neighbourhoods that are planned, built and populated with the intenseinvolvement of community leaders; the second is the bottom-up emergence of residentialpatterns typical of inner-city neighbourhoods that have gradually developed over time.

IntroductionSocial and ethno-religious enclaves, which form part of the urban landscape throughoutthe world today, are a central theme of urban studies. The creation and impact of urbanenclaves was empirically studied and theoretically investigated from various points ofview, with studies including a focus on the hosting or charter population and on minoritygroups (Marcuse, 1997). The inner processes of self-segregation and external forces ofexclusion and discrimination that are shaping the enclaves have been attracting scholarlyattention (Peach, 2003; Pamuk, 2004; Walks and Bourne, 2006).Yet the spatial dynamicsof social enclaves in an ethno-religious enclave and the role of individuals’ preferencesand social relations — versus community leadership and government directives — inshaping minority groups’ spaces still await deeper insight (Waterman and Kosmin, 1988;Valins, 2003; Varady, 2005).

In this article we highlight the synergetic impact of various organizational levels onthe spatial structure of the urban enclave. The article focuses specifically on the internaldynamics of ethno-religious enclaves that emerge from three levels of action:(1) individuals’ relationships with their own and other groups; (2) the communityleadership’s powers inside the group and in respect of other groups; and (3) governmentdirectives and tools. We investigate the residential dynamics of two Haredi(ultra-orthodox Jewish) enclaves in Jerusalem, representing differing socialorganizational through communal leadership and local-government directives.

Religious minority groups are typified by strong solidarity bonds and an intensesense of belonging (Finke, 1992; 1997). Similar to other religion-based segregated

bs_bs_banner

Volume 37.6 November 2013 2152–76 International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchDOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01187.x

© 2012 Urban Research Publications Limited. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX42DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA

neighbourhoods (Phillips, 2006; Tausch et al., 2011), Haredi enclaves are characterizedby the obvious dominance of members of the Haredi sects in the public space and clearterritorial boundaries. Although it appears unified to outsiders, the Haredi populationdisplays internal, nuanced distinctions among its sects and sub-sects, each interested inguarding its unique cultural identity. Different values, interpretations of religious ritualsand normative behaviour motivate individuals to concentrate on other members of thesame sub-sect to create friendly social environments. The need to concentrate onneighbours who share the same faith, world view and lifestyle directs them towardsliving within a self-sufficient circle of what we term ‘friends’ who match the person’sself-identity and way of life.1 In the same way, relationships between Haredi sects areexpressed through the residential preferences of members (Shilhav, 1993; Berman, 2000;Zelkin, 2005). It is advantageous to sect members to live within the group’s territory interms of access to community services, mutual assistance and support. It also promotessocialization of the younger generation, keeping youngsters isolated from externalinfluences. Territorial concentration of sect members facilitates the leadership’s controlof members’ lives, thus preventing deviation from accepted norms (Shilhav andFriedman, 1985).

In Israel, long-term arrangements between the state and the Haredi sects has createdthe unique phenomenon of ‘a learning society’, in which most Haredi men continue theirstudies and do not work (Gonen, 2006). This distinctive Israeli phenomenon increasesthe poverty of Haredi people and reinforces their solidarity with the community’s valuesand needs (Friedman, 1991). However, some are well off: many Haredi communitiescontrol an array of financial resources and services provided by the state and receivedonations from community members throughout the world. These funds finance anextensive system of service provision that is attuned to individual and family needs in theareas of education, marriage (including apartment purchases for newlyweds) and welfare(Dahan, 1998; 1999; Berman, 2000; Choshen and Korach, 2005; Blumen, 2007). Thissupport system, created in Israel, emphasizes the individual’s dependence on thecommunity and its leaders (Shilhav and Friedman, 1985). Moreover, it is claimed that thestate of Israel supports spatial segregation, as state involvement enhances the isolation ofHaredi communities and facilitates leadership supervision of community members(Yiftachel and Roded, 2010). These unique terms of leadership supervision may varyfrom one Haredi enclave to the other, and we are thus able to compare the impact of thegroup’s leadership on the spatial organization of the Haredi communities in two differentorganizational circumstances.

Haredi enclaves have expanded as part of Jerusalem’s urban processes; nowadays theyare home to very few secular and non-Jewish residents (Choshen et al., 2002). It may comeas a surprise that apartment prices in Haredi neighbourhoods are significantly higher thanin similar areas for the general population (Shilhav, 1993; Berman and Klinov, 1997). Thisphenomenon can be attributed to the special importance of housing to this sector (Dahan,1998; 1999; Berman, 2000; Blumen, 2007) and the fact that apartments are purchased withthe help of community funds. In an attempt to minimize conflicts between the Haredicommunity and other social groups, central and local governments in Israel are sometimesinvolved in the construction and management of Haredi residential areas. Thus, since the1990s, Israel’s Ministry of Housing has allocated land for building several Haredineighbourhoods throughout Israel. In addition, local governments often enact thenecessary regulations for maintaining Haredi public space. This includes setting Eruvpillars, which encircle the community’s territory and define it, thus enabling Harediresidents to carry objects such as prayer books or children’s pushchairs outdoors on theJewish Sabbath (something which would otherwise be forbidden by Torah law), to closestreets off to traffic on Saturdays and to allocate buildings for holding religious services.

1 After the Hebrew word ‘Haver’, we use the term ‘friends’ for people of the same sub-sect, though notnecessarily acquainted or having close relationships with each other.

Haredi segregation in Jerusalem 2153

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37.6© 2012 Urban Research Publications Limited

As state and municipal involvement in Haredi areas varies over time and space, we wereable to examine its impact on the inner structures of the enclaves.

This study explores the impact of intra-communal, inter-sect and community–government relations on the spatial organization of Ramat Shlomo and Sanhedria, two ofJerusalem’s Haredi neighbourhoods. In particular, it examines the residential dynamicsin these two different urban settings. The first, Ramat Shlomo, is a new, peripheralneighbourhood that was planned and built for the Haredi community in the mid-1990swith intense state involvement. Ramat Shlomo’s population was selected in acoordinated manner by Haredi housing committees, whose decisions reflected therelative share of each community in the city. By contrast, the second neighbourhood,Sanhedria, an old neighbourhood in the inner city, developed gradually into an attractiveHaredi enclave through individual-level residential decisions. The two neighbourhoodshouse members of the same major sects, but their communal and organizationalframeworks differ vastly. Our research analyses the residential patterns in these twoneighbourhoods over their lengthy development periods, traces the links between socialnorms and urban environment, evaluates the role of individual preferences versuscommunity needs and government directives, and reveals the major mechanisms thatdetermine segregation between the Haredi sects within them.

MethodologyOur research data contain two types of information: the first type entails detailedresidential patterns constructed in the research areas; the second encompasses spatialpreferences and tools of individuals and the various leaderships, in addition togovernment policies.

We conducted extensive field surveys in Ramat Shlomo and Sanhedria throughout 2008in order to identify the residential patterns of Haredi households. Six Haredi interviewers,acquainted with Haredi communal structure, went from door to door to conduct structuredinterviews. Almost all households in both neighbourhoods (97%) cooperated with theinterviewers. The survey data revealed the sub-sect of every household in Ramat Shlomoand Sanhedria, and made it possible to trace back ownership or rental history of the vastmajority of apartments over a long period. Previous research (Waterman and Kosmin,1986; Friedman, 1991) revealed that the high level of consciousness as to neighbours’identity in the Haredi world allows residents to remember their neighbours from yearsback, and the identity of their apartment’s previous owners. In Ramat Shlomo we wereable to reconstruct residential dynamics since 1995, the year of initial settlement, while inSanhedria we managed to reconstruct a detailed database from 1966. In addition, thesurvey enabled us to trace individuals’ residential preferences and considerations.

In addition to the field survey, in-depth interviews were conducted with key figuresboth within and outside these two communities. Several rabbis and community leadersliving in Ramat Shlomo and Sanhedria provided information on residential-choicemechanisms and community life. We also interviewed neighbourhood planners, whoprovided information on the planning and establishment of Ramat Shlomo, as well as onplanning and residential dynamics in Sanhedria. Additional information on these topicswas from interviews with Jerusalem’s municipal engineer for the years 1989 to 1993.Finally, we spoke to representatives of real estate agencies to verify the information onresidential mechanisms obtained in Ramat Shlomo.

Altogether, Ramat Shlomo comprises 263 buildings housing 2,259 apartments and180 institutions. Of these, 63 institutions are housed in specially allocated buildings and117 operate from residential buildings. Sanhedria comprises 115 buildings, of which 17house institutions. The remaining buildings host a further 67 institutions, 869 residentialapartments and 40 are mixed-use structures (that is, residences combined with a day-carefacility). Most residents own their apartments (96% in Ramat Shlomo and 68% inSanhedria). Data from the surveys were merged with data from aerial photographs and

2154 Nurit Alfasi, Shlomit Flint Ashery and Itzhak Benenson


a geographic database provided by the Jerusalem municipality (updated as at 2004).Based on these data we evaluated spatial congregation at single-apartment level, buildinglevel and neighbourhood level, while keeping track of resident identity and turnover.

The salience of identity was reflected by residents’ explicit responses on the religiousidentity (sect and sub-sect) of their neighbours and their apartment’s previous occupants.The high level of cooperation in both neighbourhoods enabled us to producehigh-resolution maps of the residential distribution, to compare residents’ stated andrevealed preferences and to construct a comprehensive picture of internal segregationprocesses. By combining the entire spatio-temporal dynamics of residential patterns inboth neighbourhoods with information on individuals’ preferences and organizationaltools, we were able to evaluate the role of the respective leaderships in forming the innerstructure of the enclaves.

Theoretical remarksUrban studies usually regard residential patterns as the result of free individual choicesand householder migration (Schelling, 1971; MacIntyre, 1984; 1988; Ihlanfeldt andScafidi, 2002; Wahlstrom, 2005) and understand it as being influenced by individualresidents’ views of their own identity and that of their neighbours (Semyonov and Tyree,1981; Dougherty and Huyser, 2008). Much of the geographic literature deals withsegregation resulting from either inner forces (encouraging people to congregate as ameans to preserve the group’s culture, language and customs — see Kosmin et al., 1979;Larmore, 1990; Rawls, 1993; Macedo, 1995; Boal, 1996; Chivallon, 2001; Wahlstrom,2005; Boal, 2008) or from external forces (through the spatial exclusion of unwantedgroups from the majority group’s space — see Lee, 1977; Boal, 1978; Kosmin and deLange, 1980; Knox, 1982). In addition, urban residential dynamics are often explainedby referring to economic factors (Kasarda, 1972; 1978; Speare, 1974; Fossett and Waren,2005) or to a mixture of economic and non-economic factors (Gottdiener, 1997; Borjas,1998; Clark and Withers, 1999; Fossett 2006a; 2006b). In the case of the latter, ethnicrelationships, family lifestyle or lifecycle features are usually added to the basic set ofeconomic factors (Feitelson, 1993; Johnston et al., 2007); the economic factors blur theimpact of the non-economic factors, especially of self-identity, on spatial organization.

As Schnell and Benjamini (2001; 2004; 2005) and Montgomery (2011) have shown,urban segregation is a multidimensional phenomenon that stretches beyond residentialpatterns. In particular, a person can have professional ties with ‘others’ but remainsegregated in his or her residential space (Ellis et al., 2004), or the person can resideamong strangers, yet remain segregated in his or her daily activities and interactions.Schnell and Benjamini (2004) see this as the construction of ‘socially constitutedspaces’, in which people participate in selected social networks that stretch beyond thespatiality of the city. However, religious minorities who require spatial congregation formaintaining their lifestyle and rituals, and whose meaningful social contacts are usuallylimited to their own community, tend to combine spatial and social segregation. Thisstudy focuses on the spatial segregation of Haredi enclaves, while taking into accountsocial relations at an inter- and intra-sect level.

Recent research shows that the socio-spatial reality of cities is based on aself-organization paradigm: residential choices and spatial activities are determined bysocio-cultural-economic interactions and vice versa (MacIntyre, 1988; Möbius andRosenblat, 2002; Schnell and Benjamini, 2005). The literature also assumes thatdifferent levels of social organization play an important role in shaping segregatedresidential spaces (Telles, 1995; Knox and Pinch, 2000; Möbius and Rosenblat, 2002;Iceland, 2003; Christensen and Hogen-Esch, 2006; McNair, 2006). In this research wedeal with this self-organizing system in one direction. Specifically, we are interested inthe way the tight social relationships of Haredi religious groups and the various levels oforganizational involvement affect the spatial arrangement of residential areas.



Control and supervision in Jerusalem’s Haredi sectorHaredi Jews define themselves in terms of their commitment to Halacha, the collectivebody of Jewish religious law that guides religious rituals as well as practices in numerousaspects of day-to-day life (Shilhav, 1993). Social and economic control mechanisms leadto the socialization process of the individual and to deep solidarity with the community’svalues and needs (Caplan and Stadler, 2009). Individuals are similar in their desire to livein a strictly observant religious environment and to distance themselves from externalvalues and lifestyles (Waterman and Kosmin, 1986; 1987). But how does identificationwith the group and obedience to the leadership turn into a communal mechanism thataffects the construction of inner Haredi space?

Haredi sub-sects vary from one another in terms of clothing, language and attitudestowards work versus full-time Torah (Bible) study, attitudes that express theologicalstances and historical tradition. Adherents of the Haredi way of life are usually born,raised, educated and married within the same sub-sect. Their identification with thesub-sect’s leaders and institutions is intense and overt. The individual’s social status islinked to community values and affects all aspects of life, from livelihood to marriage tothe level of financial support received from the community (Sivan and Caplan, 2003).This status is also expressed in the spatial location of the individual’s family — that is,the closer the person’s spatial location is to institutions, the principal rabbi and ‘friends’,the higher is this person’s position in the social hierarchy. Residential space is thereforean important aspect of Haredi communal life.

Haredi Jews attach a high value to living in Jerusalem. With the end of Britishmandate in 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel, Jerusalem was divided intoan eastern Jordanian part, which includes the Old City, and a western Israeli part, whichwas soon populated by secular Jewish as well as Haredi groups (Kellerman, 1993). Thehomogeneous Haredi neighbourhoods that were established during the first years of theIsraeli state, such as Kiryat Sanz, Belz and Ezrat Torah, were each populated by a singlesub-sect. This was also true for the first Jewish neighbourhoods built outside the walls ofthe Old City of Jerusalem during the nineteenth century, for example, Mea Shearim andMishkenot Sha’ananim (Romann and Weingrod, 1991). These neighbourhoods’long-term homogeneity made them especially attractive to the Haredi population. Afterthe 1967 war and Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of the city, Jerusalemexperienced massive development. Actively encouraged by the state, West Jerusalemexpanded three-fold (ibid.). Since then, Jerusalem’s Haredi population has grownconsiderably, with Haredi enclaves extending from the city centre towards thenorth (Hasson, 1996; 2001; Hasson and Gonen, 1997; Choshen and Korach, 2005).Importantly, in contrast to the older neighbourhoods, several Haredi sects and sub-sectsinhabit the newer neighbourhoods.

The Haredi populations in Ramat Shlomo and SanhedriaThe basic lifestyle and ritual orientation of each sect is determined by its association toone of three main Haredi streams, named after their communal or geographic origin: theLithuanians, the Hasidim and the Sephardim (Levy, 1988; Shilhav, 1993), as describedbelow. The sects’ names reflect internally generated distinctions. While theologicaldistinctions are beyond the scope of this article, we nonetheless provide somedistinguishing features to support our findings in the areas of the sub-sects’ socio-spatialbehavior and interactions.

The majority of the Haredi residents of Ramat Shlomo and Sanhedria belong to thesects that traditionally populated Jerusalem: Lithuanians, Hasidim and Sephardim, aswell as foreign Lithuanian newcomers. Ramat Shlomo also includes Neturei Karta,Chabad and Sephardic Lithuanians. Both neighbourhoods house a minority group that



identifies with the National Religious movement, individuals who practise a non-Haredi,modern and pro-Zionist religiosity.

Lithuanians

Lithuanians represent the Haredi elite. They set the norms for Haredi society, aspiring torule adherents’ minds rather than their emotions and regarding religious studies as thecore value of an individual’s life (Etkes and Tikochinski, 2004). The Haredim ofJerusalem commonly distinguish between foreign and Israeli Lithuanians under thebroad umbrella of the Lithuanian sect, which is spread throughout the world. Lithuaniansub-sects are further differentiated by their connection to a specific rabbi (religiousleader) or yeshiva (institution of higher religious learning):

• Israeli Lithuanians: Israeli Lithuanians deem Holy Studies a central culturalcomponent of everyday life (Gonen, 2006). Men’s lives are therefore centred on theyeshiva, a higher religious-studies institution. Israeli Lithuanians nonetheless wearmodern black suits and use Hebrew as their daily language (Etkes and Tikochinski,2004; Zelkin, 2005).

• Foreign Lithuanians: This group includes American and Western EuropeanLithuanians. Most foreign Lithuanians in Sanhedria come to Israel for several years inorder to study at a yeshiva. Despite sharing the faith of the local Lithuanians, foreignLithuanians continue to speak their native languages and maintain their originalcultures (Gonen, 2006).

Hasidim

The various Hasidic groups emphasize emotional religious fervour based on their awe ofGod. Their lives focus on the court of the Admor (the religious leader), which fulfils bothreligious and active leadership functions in the daily life of the community (Piekarz,1999; Green, 2001). Hasidim maintain social relationships, including marriage, mainlywithin a specific Hasidic court (Ben Sasson, 1987; Piekarz, 1999; Green, 2001):

• Chabad: Hasidic courts need to be differentiated from the Hasidim of Chabad (Elior,1987). The Chabad, a Hasidic sub-sect, adhere to a theology inspired by the Kabbalah(Jewish mystical writings). The sub-sect’s openness to modernity is a sign of itscompartmentalization (Elior, 1992). Its distinct missionary vision is reflected in itsdemography: more than 30% of its members were not born into the community butjoined it at some point in their lives (Elior, 1987; 1992).2

• Neturei Karta: Ramat Shlomo also houses another Hasidic sub-sect, that of theNeturei Karta, members of which maintain a strictly orthodox lifestyle involvingalmost absolute isolation from modern lifestyles. Members of this sub-sect are knownfor their ideological resistance to Zionism and their rejection of the state of Israel,which they believe may not be established prior to the coming of the Messiah (Rabkin,2006). This community is often hostile to and isolated from other Haredi groups,whom they denounce for having reconciled themselves with the state’s existence.3

2 This information was obtained during an interview on 22 February 2009 with a rabbi of the ChabadHaredi sect and municipal council member during the construction period of Ramat Shlomo.

3 This information stems from interviews with a municipal architect for the Ramat Shlomo area (14February 2005; 18 March 2006) and an interview (24 March 2006) with the municipal architect forthe Sanhedria area from 1990 to 2001. A member of the Lithuanian Haredi sect, he has been aresident of Sanhedria since 1980.



Sephardim

The definition of ‘Sephardim’ commonly refers to a broad religious continuum thatranges from traditional to Haredim Judaism and includes descendants of Jews fromIslamic countries as well as those of the Old City of Jerusalem and the speakers ofLadino. Ashkenazi Haredim (Haredim of European origin) consider the Sephardiminferior because their orthodox genealogy is relatively short.

As a social category, the broad term includes secular to observant to Haredi Judaism.In this study, the term Sephardi (singular) or Sephardim (plural) refers only to Haredim.Secular and conservative Sephardim often belong to the National Religious movement:

• Sephardic Lithuanians: The Sephardic segment of the Haredi community includes anincreasing number of Sephardic Lithuanians. This relatively new sect was createdafter the Holocaust, when most of the European Lithuanian yeshivas were emptied oftheir students. In an attempt to repopulate the yeshivas, Lithuanian leaders invitedstudents from Arabic countries to join their institutions. Here they were educated inEuropean religious traditions (Lupo, 2004). Many Sephardim thus came to adopt theLithuanians’ culture and made the study of the Torah their central occupation(Horowitz, 2000; Leon, 2007).

Case study neighbourhoods: Ramat Shlomo and SanhedriaRamat Shlomo and Sanhedria (see Figure 1) are located within a greater Haredi enclavein north-eastern Jerusalem. Whereas Sanhedria was established and populated over along period as a result of many individual decisions, Ramat Shlomo was designed for andpopulated by the Haredi community in one fell swoop during the mid-1990s. In a similarway to other suburban locations, Ramat Shlomo offered people an opportunity to movefrom small, expensive apartments in the inner city to relatively larger living spaces fromwhere the city centre was, however, less accessible.

Figure 1 Development of Jerusalem before and after the 1967 war; showing the location ofRamat Shlomo and Sanhedria, and a closer view of Ramat Shlomo and Sanhedria



Ramat Shlomo, the first of a series of neighbourhoods allocated to the Haredipopulation by local and central government, was established on land that wasexpropriated from the adjacent Arab village of Shuafat, according to Elbaz.4 It wasplanned for young families, taking into account the large average household size of ninepersons (Hershkovitch, 2001).

Today, 15 years later, Ramat Shlomo has approximately 22,000 residents (around2,400 families). The neighbourhood remains divided into several extremely segregatedareas, as originally planned, each populated by a different Haredi sub-sect (see Figure 2).Strict segregation is maintained by inter-sect arrangements, which maintain a dividedapartment market (see Figure 3).

Organized segregation in Ramat Shlomo contrasts with the common model operatingin other Haredi neighbourhoods such as Sanhedria, which are characterized by differenthistories and residential dynamics. Before the 1967 war, Sanhedria lay on the Jordanianborder. After the war its relative location changed from frontier settlement to inner-cityneighbourhood. From 1995, Sanhedria gradually changed from a mixed neighbourhoodhousing secular, religious and ultra-orthodox residents to a pure ultra-orthodoxneighbourhood, and from an area that used to be populated by native-born residents toone that housed 25% foreign-born residents. On the surface, the neighbourhoodrepresents a unified housing market in which all sub-sects are free to buy or rentapartments as they wish. Not bound by communal directives, Sanhedria inhabitants’residential choices seem to reflect the state of the housing market and individualpreferences, thus creating an overtly integrated residential pattern (Figure 4).

4 Interview with the municipal architect for the Ramat Shlomo area (18 March 2006).

Note: Remaining buildings (non-coloured/shaded areas) represent public institutions

Figure 2 Initial sect allocation plan for Ramat Shlomo, early 1990s (source: courtesy ofrabbi and municipal council member during Ramat Shlomo’s construction, Municipality ofJerusalem)



Figure 3 Residential patterns by sect (Lithuanians, Hasidim, Sephardim, Chabad, SephardicLithuanian, Foreign Lithuanian, Neturei Karta and National Religious) and building, RamatShlomo, 1995, 2001 and 2008



Sanhedria’s high rental and purchase prices reflect its desirable central location, the widerange of institutions active in the neighbourhood and the population’s high status.

Sanhedria and Ramat Shlomo provide empirical evidence that the same populationgroups, practicing the same lifestyle and values, can exhibit and sustain qualitativelydifferent residential patterns. The differences between organized enclaves, representedby Ramat Shlomo, and spontaneous enclaves, represented by Sanhedria, give rise to two

Figure 4 Residential patterns by sect (Lithuanian, Hasidim, Sephardim, Foreign Lithuanian,National Religious and Secular) and building, Sanhedria, 1966, 1982, 1995 and 2008



fundamental questions. First, regarding Ramat Shlomo, what kind of day-to-dayresidential mechanism sustains the initial structure of the organized enclave? Whenasking this question, we assume that individual decisions can neither create nor sustainsuch strict segregation; hence, what higher-level instrument is in use? Secondly, inrespect of Sanhedria, have residents of this apparently integrated neighbourhoodrelinquished — or surrendered — their desire to live among ‘friends’? That is, doesliving in a self-organizing enclave mean that specific individual preferences must beignored? The next section of this article deals with these questions and reveals the socialapparatus that drives the observed order.

The spatial impact of social relations and control mechanismsHaredim prefer to live among ‘friends’. Nevertheless, we wanted to confirm this‘common knowledge’ empirically for Ramat Shlomo and for Sanhedria. Residents ofboth neighbourhoods were therefore asked to rate the relative importance of thefollowing considerations when choosing their apartments: (1) proximity to educationaland religious institutions; (2) apartment cost; and (3) neighbours’ identity in terms oftheir specific sect. In both areas, very few participants listed the location of institutionsand apartment cost as factors determining their choice of an apartment (see Table 1),whereas the majority of respondents did point out neighbours’ identity as a crucialparameter affecting choice.

Most members of all sub-sects attributed great importance to their neighbours’identity, revealing their support of segregation practices. In their responses they alsocommented on the close correspondence between individual preferences and theresidential policy of the community leadership. What was noticeable was that, despite thefact that they were already living among Haredi Jews, the vast majority of RamatShlomo’s residents (96%) and most of Sanhedria’s residents (almost 76%) reported thatthe sub-sect of their neighbours was the most important factor when choosing anapartment. Having confirmed this trend, we attempted to determine other socio-spatialmechanisms that lead to differences in the residential characteristics of these twoneighbourhoods.

Table 1 Importance of apartment cost, neighbours’ identity and proximity to institutions inapartment choice, Ramat Shlomo and Sanhedria (2008)

L H S FL NR SL NK Ch

Ramat Shlomo

N 529 322 307 few 146 587 221 263

Neighbours’ identity 69% 81% 66% – 72% 67% 100% 72%

Price 23% 16% 16% – 25% 19% 0% 17%

Institute 8% 3% 18% – 3% 14% 0% 11%

Sanhedria

N 161 339 169 262 17 – – –

Neighbours’ identity 62% 59% 64% 54% 76% – – –

Price 23% 28% 21% 32% 24% – – –

Institute 14% 12% 14% 13% 0% – – –

Note: L = Lithuanian, H = Hasidim, S = Sephardim, FL = Foreign Lithuanian, NR = National Religious,SL = Sephardim Lithuanian, NK = Neturei Karta, Ch = Chabad



Ramat Shlomo: community segregation and extreme spatial segregation

In contrast to Sanhedria, one of the unique mechanisms that operated in Ramat Shlomoand enabled the maintenance of the organized enclave, were the housing committees.These committees were set up to coordinate entry into the neighbourhood and linked newresidents and municipal authorities; this allowed them to divide the neighbourhood intoautonomous areas, each assigned to one sub-sect.5 Once this allocation had beencompleted, the committees dispersed. The municipal authorities replaced the committeeswith a local community council, which consisted of community leaders. The council’saim was to ‘consolidate all sects and ideas and constitute an integrated local structure’.Respect for the sects’ autonomy within their assigned territories formed the basis of thecouncil’s mandate.6 Under the council’s umbrella, informal community arrangementswere instituted which, through compliance of individual residents, shaped theneighbourhood’s structure. Most sub-sects used powerful yet unofficial ‘admissioncommissions’ to ensure that their sub-neighbourhoods were populated exclusively bymembers of their specific sub-sects. A municipal council member during RamatShlomo’s construction stated that:

When we were populating the neighbourhood, we developed strict definitions regarding theidentity of our inhabitants. Nowadays, there is no formal control of newcomers’ identity. Theinitial order could be disrupted in theory. Nevertheless, it is upheld by the unwrittenarrangements instituted by the various sects.7

Thus, despite the Haredi rabbis’ declared tolerance and overt cooperation, mostcommunity leaders chose to reinforce their sub-sect’s identity by establishing an internalexclusionary mechanism to maintain each sub-sect’s spatial isolation and preserve theneighbourhood’s original structure.8 One rabbi made reference to an agreement withinhis own sub-sect, the Kumrana Hasidim: ‘Our community members would not sell to amember of a different sect. This practice is stronger than any law’.9 Apparently, this normis so powerful that members of the National Religious movement, the non-Haredisub-sect living in Ramat Shlomo, have been driven to apply for a similar policy tosafeguard their territory. One of the community’s leaders expressed this as follows: ‘InRamat Shlomo, we operate a strong admissions commission . . . Our residents areforbidden from selling their apartments to just anyone, unless it is “one of our own”.People won’t sell to outsiders’.10

Spatial organization among Ramat Shlomo’s Haredim therefore does not rely onindividual preferences; it is the product of extreme forced segregation, upheld at the levelof individual buildings and at neighbourhood level. Despite internal differences betweenthe sources of power within each sect, the arrangements themselves are common to mostsub-sects. As a result, the movement of individuals into and out of apartments in RamatShlomo is heavily controlled, with sub-neighbourhoods effectively closed to ‘others’,including other Haredi sub-sects. The relationship between the individual and thecommunity are clearly articulated and the resulting strict segregation is therefore keptstable.

5 Interviews with the municipal architect for the Ramat Shlomo area (18 March 2006) and a rabbi ofthe Chabad Haredi sect and municipal council member during Ramat Shlomo’s construction (22February 2009)

6 Ibid.7 Interview 22 February, 2009.8 Interviews with the municipal architect for the Ramat Shlomo area (18 March 2006) and a municipal

council member during its construction (22 February 2009).9 From an interview with a rabbi and leader of the Kumrana Hasidim in Ramat Shlomo (23 February

2009).10 From an interview with the leader of the National Religious community and head of the Civil Guard

in Ramat Shlomo (23 February 2009).



Sanhedria: a free market with a clear behavioural code

The organized segregation of Ramat Shlomo contrasts strongly with the model ofmicro-congregation observed in Sanhedria. Although 60% of Sanhedria’s residentsdeclared that they preferred to live among ‘friends’, our research revealed that, inpractice, a mix of two to six different sects (3.16 � 0.99 sects per building on average)could be found throughout the neighbourhood (see Figure 4).

This means that, despite their stated preference to reside among ‘friends’, the differentsub-sects in Sanhedria live in an environment that has been consistently heterogeneousfor over 40 years. It therefore appears that the local residential structure of the majorityof households differs significantly from their individual needs and desires. Thesefindings are controversial and make it difficult to understand how Sanhedria and other‘unplanned’ Haredi residential neighbourhoods, such as Romema and Bayit ve-Gan,which exhibit similar internal organization, have sustained their heterogeneity. As noted,Sanhedria is a central and attractive residential neighbourhood, a fact that is reflected inhigh housing prices.11 Does the attractiveness of the neighbourhood outbalanceunrealized residential preferences? Would the residential space maintain itsheterogeneity over the years, or is a segregated future inevitable? To find answers to thesequestions, we looked at the way in which individuals and the community implementedtheir housing preferences in the absence of a central community organization, and thencompared our findings to those from Ramat Shlomo.

An earlier study on Sanhedria (Flint et al., 2010) revealed the mechanisms that bridgethe gap between individual preferences and urban constraints. The loose residentialorganization characterizing inner-city neighbourhoods and forcing Haredim to share abuilding with families from other sub-sects while sustaining a sense of segregatedcommunity, forms the backdrop of this study. This micro-segregation mechanismconsists of two parts: the first concerns choosing an apartment while taking intoconsideration the building’s and neighbourhood’s population mix, whereas the secondincludes a spatial-behavioural code that enables residents to feel as if they are livingamong ‘friends’ (members of their own sub-sect) even if a minimal number —sometimes only one family — lives in the same building. It is worth noting that thismechanism emerged spontaneously, without leadership involvement or control, and wasnever articulated by sect leaders. Micro-segregation is a bottom-up behavioural codeallowing individuals to institute the level of separateness they need in order to feelrelatively comfortable in an environment that is antithetical to their preferences or needs.

Haredi awareness of the existence of ‘friends’ in their building is reflected in Table 2.To test whether families achieve their stated preferences, we calculated the percentage offamilies of the same sub-sect that currently lived in that building for each family movinginto a building by purchasing or renting an apartment. The average of these data for eachsub-sect provided some insight into the outcome of families’ residential choice. Asshown in Table 2, people prefer to enter (buy or rent) an apartment in a building in whichthe residence rate of their sub-sect is significantly higher than the percentage of theirgroup within the population; for Hassidim and Sephardim these differences are highlysignificant at the level of the building. These two groups are, indeed, segregated inSanhedria. As can be seen from Figure 5, Hassidim were segregated for the entireSanhedria history (see the eastern side of Sanhedria in Figure 4), while the segregationof Sephardim has increased over the past 15 years. The segregation tendencies of bothIsraeli and foreign-born Lithuanians in terms of residential behavior are essentiallyweaker (see Table 2; Figure 5); the vast majority of Lithuanians, and a substantial part ofthe Hassidim and Sephardim groups, do not live according to their own stated

11 From interviews with the municipal architect for the Sanhedria area (24 March 2006) and thedeputy manager of the Department of Information and Mapping, Municipality of Jerusalem (24February 2006).



preferences. Lithuanians weakly follow their stated residential preferences at the level ofthe building and, as a result, their segregation in Sanhedria is growing slowly andremains low.

The mechanism of micro-segregation reveals the emergence of a residentialbehavioural code relating to the purchase and rental decisions of Sanhedria’s residents.This creates confidence among residents — when newcomers purchase or rent anapartment from people of their own sub-sect, they can relax and feel confident about theirneighbours in the building. As a result of intra-community relations, the sub-sectyeshivas function as mortgage banks, ‘rolling over’ apartments from vacating toincoming dwellers.12 As a result, most apartment transactions in Sanhedria occurbetween members of the same sub-sect. Table 3, calculated on the basis of historical data,

12 From an interview with Professor of Geography at Bar-Ilan University and an expert on powerdynamics in the Haredi community (21 June 2009).

Table 2 Percentage of sect population and mean percentage of ‘friends’ in theneighbourhood of chosen building in Sanhedria, 1983–2008

Sect

No. of Familieswho Chose to

Enter Buildingsin Sanhedria

Average % ofFamilies fromthe Same Sectin Sanhedria

Average % ofFamilies from

the Same Sect inChosen Building

Average % of Familiesfrom the Same Sect inthe Neighbourhood of

Chosen Building

Hasidim 333 29.0% 34.6%*** 40.5%***

Sephardim 255 18.3% 23.2%** 24.8%**

Lithuanian 563 18.5% 20.2% 25.9%***

Foreign Lithuanian 480 14.3% 17.8%* 16.8%*

Note: Significance of difference between the given value and population average: * -p < 0.1; ** -0.05 < p < 0.10;*** -0.01 < p < 0.05

Note: Calculations apply from 1973 onwards, when the number of buildings in Sanhedriaincreased to above 50. To be significant at the 5% or 1% levels, the values of the Moran Iindex should be above 0.1 and 0.15, respectively

Figure 5 Segregation of Sanhedria sects as expressed in the Moran I index of spatialautocorrelation



indicates the high likelihood of an empty apartment being transferred to new residentsbelonging to the same sect. This practice creates a residential continuum in the respectivebuildings: safe, convenient apartments are thus inhabited by safe, suitable residents,meaning that both current and new occupants can feel at home. As all parties areinterested in maintaining this condition, a minimal presence of ‘friends’ of the same sectsuffices.

Micro-segregation in Sanhedria is thus preserved at the critical turnover stage ofhousing choice. The behavioural code all sub-sects living in Sanhedria adopt ensures arelatively high level of certainty at the individual and the communal level, whilesufficiently maintaining the segregation of Hassidim over the entire history of the area,increasing the segregation of the Sephardim and leading to a decrease in possible tensionbetween different sub-sects that share the same residential buildings. The twocomplementary features are: (1) people’s tendency to prefer occupying an apartment thathas been vacated by a member of their own sect; and (2) Hassidic and Sephardichouseholds, much more than Lithuanians, prefer living in buildings and areas in whichthere are a relatively large number of ‘friendly’ households. Same-sect substitution helpsindividuals develop a sense of security and belonging in a mixed neighbourhood,reinforces Haredi confidence in the future affiliation of residents and strengthensneighbours’ confidence in new occupants. It also reassures Hassidic and Sephardicfamilies that ‘friends’ will continue to reside nearby over time. Thus, although Sanhedriaas an urban space seems mixed and disorderly at first glance, an organized residentialsystem is in place, providing clear codes for the individual and the community.

The impact of sub-sect relationships on spatial organizationA uniform hierarchy, stemming from different lifestyles, prayer rituals and genealogy,exists in most Haredi communities in Israel and abroad, which grade sub-sects accordingto their level of acceptance and superiority (Elior, 1987). At the upper end of the scale wefind the Lithuanians, who view themselves and are viewed by other sub-sects as theHaredi elite. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the Sephardim, whose orthodoxy isrelatively recent. In the Haredi world, gaps in ritual orthodoxy have social implications.The legitimacy and the desire to maintain social interactions with individuals belongingto other sects are affected by inter-communal relations. Along with restrictions on socialties between members of different sects, intra-sect relations affect the residentialpreferences of individual members.

The Sephardic population in Sanhedria

During the twentieth century, many religious Sephardim sought to discard their culturalidentity and emulate the Lithuanian elite’s culture. Jews from the Islamic world whoretained their cultural assets were left in an inferior position (Lupo, 2004). However, thenew Sephardic Lithuanians were never fully accepted by the Ashkenazi Lithuanians andhave become stigmatized (Lupo, 2004; Leon, 2007). Chetrit (2004) claims that thetendency to marry within the sub-sect has left the Sephardic Lithuanians ‘partially

Table 3 Percentage of members of a selected sect who occupy an apartment vacated by amember of the same sect

Year Hasidim Sephardim Lithuanian Foreign Lithuanian

1983–1995 68% 2% 67% 11%

1996–2008 47% 64% 72% 50%



cancelled out in terms of identity on the one hand, and rejected by the Western Europeanhegemony on the other’ (ibid.: 47). Their consequent isolation in a Sephardic ghetto wasfed by the sectarian rifts characterizing Haredi society. The population distribution inRamat Shlomo reflects their sensitive status: although Sephardic Lithuanians liveaccording to the Lithuanian lifestyle, they are isolated in a socially and geographicallydistinct enclave, which they share with other Sephardic sects, and are practically rejectedby Lithuanian institutions (Friedman, 1991).

Hence, Sephardic families who have lived throughout Sanhedria for decades now tendto cluster mainly along King Saul Street, a noisy commercial area that is less attractivefor residential purposes. While the Sephardim live there together with other Haredisub-sects, they are markedly absent from other parts of the neighbourhood. There hasbeen a considerable reduction of their presence in the eastern part of the neighbourhoodin particular, which was previously dominated by the Hasidim (1995–2008; seeFigure 6). This separation is apparently a result of the micro-segregation processoperating at the building level.

Figure 6 Residential patterns of Sephardim by building, Sanhedria, 1967, 1982, 1995 and2008



The Sephardic area in Ramat Shlomo exemplifies the different dynamics occurringonce communal power slackens off. In the mid-1990s the Sephardic sub-neighbourhoodwas populated by 768 Sephardic families (86%) and 127 Sephardic Lithuanian families(14%). Despite their shared ethnic background, the separation between these sub-sects isnow obvious (Figure 7).

The dynamics of Sephardic residence in Ramat Shlomo point to sectoral changes thathave taken place in the sub-neighbourhood as a result of internal conflict that divides thetraditional Sephardim from the newer Sephardic Lithuanians. In the past decade, with therise of asset values, approximately 60% of Sephardic families sold their apartments toSephardic Lithuanian families who were seeking to reside close to Lithuaniancommunities. Gradually, the Sephardic Lithuanian minority in Ramat Shlomo beganoutnumbering the Sephardim in the sub-neighbourhood. A mechanism that is quitesimilar to the micro-segregation observed in Sanhedria developed too, as residents beganto transfer apartments to ‘friends’: we found 82 transactions between SephardicLithuanian families between 1998 and 2008, as opposed to seven transactions betweenSephardic Lithuanians and Sephardim over the same period. Thus, while Ramat Shlomocommunity rules adhered to the borders of the Sephardic sub-neighbourhood, the innerstructure of these neighbourhoods was converted by individual actions. Today, 307families belong to the Sephardic sects (34%) and 587 families are Sephardic Lithuanians(66%). Owing to the segregated structure of Ramat Shlomo, the Sephardic populationcannot settle elsewhere in the neighbourhood and is thus effectively being driven out. Itis worth noting that in Ramat Shlomo, as in Sanhedria, the Sephardim belong to thesingle sect that does not favour trading with ‘friends’ over others, a trend that has causedtheir marginalization within the Haredi neighbourhoods.

The Lithuanian population

Despite their association with different rabbinical courts and yeshivas, and irrespective oftheir many sub-sects, the Lithuanians set the norms for the Haredi community (Ravizky,2001; Etkes and Tikochinski, 2004). This imposition of leadership and way of life onother Haredi sects, including the Sephardim, is a twentieth-century phenomenon (Lupo,2004). Lithuanians’ elite status in the Haredi world is expressed in their spatialdistribution in Haredi neighbourhoods.

However, the Lithuanian sect’s indifference to the identity of their neighbours in theirown buildings and areas close by is expressed in the heterogeneity of Ramat Shlomo’sLithuanian sub-neighbourhoods. When Ramat Shlomo was established, the Lithuaniansub-neighbourhood was organized in a top-down manner, divided between the differentrabbinical courts and yeshivas. The community council’s regulations did not enforce thissegregated order.13 Over time, the initial arrangements were upturned, with people fromdifferent Lithuanian sub-sects spreading freely throughout the sub-neighbourhood. TheLithuanian leader explained this movement as follows: ‘The community is strong andunified; internal residential arrangements are unnecessary. I do not have to live with theElioshive [a specific Lithuanian sub-sect] in order to feel at home’.14 As Figure 8 shows,several Lithuanian sub-sects share buildings in the sub-neighbourhood.

In Sanhedria, other sects consider Lithuanians desirable neighbours. While we did notexamine their residential distribution according to their yeshivas, we found Lithuanianresidents in almost every building in the neighbourhood, and thus it is safe to assume thatLithuanians from different yeshivas are spread throughout the area (see Figure 9).

13 From an interview with the chief Lithuanian rabbi and leader of the general Israeli-Lithuaniancommunity in Ramat Shlomo (13 March 2007).

14 From an interview with the aforementioned rabbi (3 February 2006).



Figure 7 Residential patterns of Sephardim and Sephardic Lithuanians by building, RamatShlomo, 1995 and 2008



ConclusionsThis article has revealed new, interesting aspects of the relationship between the socialstructure and spatial patterns of urban enclaves. The neighbourhoods studied offer arelevant example of spatial interactions between population groups that are similar inmany respects, while each is interested in preserving its unique cultural identity. Theresearch highlighted the impact of relationships between individuals and the communityand the influence of the intra-communal hierarchy on the dynamics of segregation in theresidential space. From the perspective of urban dynamics, the Haredi population’sbehaviour exemplifies the influence of social relations within a microcosm of smallcommunities with bold leadership, and government involvement in the spatialorganization of a densely populated urban area.

Haredi Jews tend to maintain their identity as a highly observant religious community,a focus that motivates them to form sizeable enclaves in major cities around the globe,including New York and London (Shilhav, 1993; Valins, 2003) While the social structureof the Haredi population appears unified to outsiders, it shapes the internal spatialorganization of neighbourhoods. In line with this theory, our research confirms thatsocial organization can have a dramatic impact on the segregation pattern of residentialspaces.

The research is based on the fragmentation of Haredi society into sects and sub-sects,which is widely acknowledged among Haredim. They classify individuals accordingly,and individuals express their pro-segregation attitudes. Specifically, the majority ofHaredim living in the research area stated that they preferred to live among people oftheir own sect, emphasizing the importance they attach to intra- and inter-sect relationswhen choosing a residence. People’s acknowledgement of divisions between sects andarticulation of pro-segregation attitudes suggest active social organization within thegroups in the form of strong relationships between sect members and an involvedleadership. While this is a unique case study, it may be indicative of other, less organizedurban groups.

Figure 8 Residential pattern of Lithuanian sects by building, Ramat Shlomo 2008



Our research revealed different residential mechanisms and resultant spatialorganizations that exemplify the spatial dynamics in the two different neighbourhoods.The neighbourhoods display specific relationships between individuals and communityleaders and differing involvement of government bodies. Ramat Shlomo representsthe organized enclave, in which the initially established spatial structure and residentialdynamics have been continually supported since. The self-organizing spontaneousenclave of Sanhedria is typified by individual community relationships andmicro-segregation.

The organized social enclave of Ramat Shlomo, with its stable inner segregation intosub-neighbourhoods, raises questions regarding the social mechanisms that created andcontinue to maintain this segregation. A specific type of relationship between individualsand the community is needed for constructing as well as maintaining such a spatial order.

Figure 9 Residential patterns of Lithuanians by building, Sanhedria, 1967, 1982, 1995 and2008



Our research shows that the social conditions producing this spatial arrangement includethe direct involvement of community leaders in the residential dynamics and the fullobedience of individuals. Our research shows that sect leaders were involved in planningthe initial segregated structure of the neighbourhood, providing each sub-group(sub-sect) with a separate territory that had clear borders. In addition, community leaderssupervised residential dynamics over time. The division of the enclave into sub-areasdemanded the cooperation of several community leaders, each with the power to directindividuals towards obedient behavior. It also required the support of central governmentto allocate land for this neighbourhood and the collaboration of the municipal authorities,which appointed the housing committees prior to the initial settlement stage. In RamatShlomo we found minor differences between the residential dynamics of the varioussects, but as a whole the spatial order was kept over time. The complementary conditionis that individuals consent to seeking housing and living in the specific areas designatedby their leaders. An extreme social structure is required to produce and maintain suchextreme spatial organization.

Interestingly, the same pattern of social relations may lead to a different spatialstructure under different urban conditions and control mechanisms. Our comparisongave rise to a twofold conclusion.

First, in contrast to the organized enclave, the spontaneous enclave lacks the ability tocreate complete segregation, despite individual residents stating similar attitudes towardssegregation. In the absence of central planning and authoritative leadership, the spatialstructure of the spontaneous enclave is created by individuals. This exposes the socialcurrents within the community, to which the relatively high concentrations of varioussects in certain parts of the enclave can be attributed. This nuanced social organizationresulted in a completely different spatial structure.

Secondly, despite the powerful social mechanisms operating within Haredi society,the existence of even a few neighbours belonging to the same social group mitigatespeople’s sense of unfamiliarity when living among ‘others’. We found that themicro-segregation mechanism was, in fact, helping residents to bridge the gap betweentheir stated preferences and real-life residential situations; members of all sub-sectspreferred to live in a building that already housed members of their own sub-sect. Insteadof the top-down arrangement that operates in Ramat Shlomo, Sanhedria utilizes aself-regulating mechanism that provides inhabitants with a similar sense of belongingand protection.

In Israel, the unique character of the Haredi enclaves can also be traced back to stateand local governments allowing Haredi leaders a free hand in planning and populatingurban areas such as Ramat Shlomo, which may not happen elsewhere. Nevertheless, ourcomparison of two extreme case studies reveals aspects of spatial organization that arerelevant to ethno-religious groups throughout the world. Like the Haredi community,other religious groups are characterized by intense community-individual relationshipsand the active involvement of the leadership in individual members’ decision making.As a result, organized enclaves are divided into distinct parts, while structures inspontaneous enclaves are likely to be maintained through micro-segregation dynamics inother religious communities too. Moreover, micro spaces also appear in neighbourhoodsthat are not at all religious. For example, Kusenbach (2008) speaks of ‘nested places’ andhierarchical spatiality that follows social hierarchy in urban communities. These nestedplaces, comprising layers and meanings, and maintained by daily interactions, emerge innon-religious urban areas. These places indicate that having a few significant ‘friends’may coincide with the observation that people have little interest in cultivatingrelationships with ‘others’. We could therefore expect micro-segregation processes toemerge in multicultural neighbourhoods in which there is no significant communityleadership. More research on this is needed in other social enclaves to examine differentresidential and behavioural codes that help people overcome the gap between their statedpreferences and their urban reality. It is safe to assume that the contents of these codeswill affect the structure of the urban enclave.



Residential patterns in urban spaces express the compromises individuals make interms of urban constraints and personal abilities. The urban reality often creates a gapbetween individual and group preferences and impedes their implementation within andoutside urban enclaves. A heterogeneous urban space in which members of differentsects live together in the same buildings and on the same streets may therefore hidemicro-segregation mechanisms. However, further research is needed to assess theexistence of micro-segregation mechanisms in non-Haredi populations and to shed lighton their impact on seemingly heterogeneous urban spaces.

Nurit Alfasi ([email protected]), Department of Geography and EnvironmentalDevelopment, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel,Shlomit Flint Ashery ([email protected]) and Itzhak Benenson ([email protected]),Department of Geography and Human Environment, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, TelAviv 69978, Israel.

ReferencesBen Sasson, H. (1987) The Ashkenazi

Hasidim: on the allocation of intellectualproperty. In I. Marcus (ed.), Dat ve-hevrahbe-mishnatam shel haside Ashkenaz[Religious and social relations inAshkenazi Hassidic writing], The ZalmanShazar Center for Jewish History,Jerusalem.

Berman, E. (2000) Sect, subsidy, andsacrifice: an economist’s view ofultra-orthodox Jews. The QuarterlyJournal of Economics 115.3,905–53.

Berman, E. and R. Klinov (1997) Humancapital investment and nonparticipation:evidence from a sample with infinitehorizons (or: Jewish father stops going towork). Discussion Paper No. 97.05, TheMaurice Falk Institute for EconomicResearch in Israel, Jerusalem.

Blumen, O. (2007) The gendered display ofwork: the midday scene in anultra-orthodox street in Israel. Nashim: AJournal of Jewish Women’s Studies andGender Issues 13 (spring), 123–54.

Boal, F.W. (1978) Ethnic residentialsegregation. In D.T. Herbert and R.J.Johnston (eds.), Social areas in cities,Wiley, London.

Boal, F.W. (1996) Integration and division:sharing and segregating in Belfast.Planning Practice and Research 11.2,151–58.

Boal, F.W. (2008) Territoriality on theShankill-Falls Divide. Irish Geography41.3, 349–66.

Borjas, G. (1998) To ghetto or not to ghetto:ethnicity and residential segregation.

Working Papers 6176, National Bureauof Economic Research 44.2,228–53.

Caplan, K. and N. Stadler (2009) Leadershipand authority in Israeli Haredi society.Hakibutz Hameuhad and the Van LeerInstitute, Tel Aviv.

Chetrit, S.S. (2004) Hamaávak HaMizrahiBe’Yisrael: Bein Dikui leshihrur, beinhizdahut lealternativa, 1948–2003 [TheMizrahi struggle in Israel, 1948–2004].Am Oved, Tel Aviv.

Chivallon, C. (2001) Religion as space for theexpression of Caribbean identity in theUnited Kingdom. Environmental andPlanning D: Society and Space 19.4,461–83.

Choshen, M., I. Kimhi and S. Hasson (2002)Tichnun U’Pituah Bar KayamaBe’Yerushalaim: Kavim ManhimLe’Tichnun [Planning and sustainabledevelopment in Jerusalem: planning policyguidelines]. Sustainable JerusalemOrganization, Jerusalem.

Choshen, M. and M. Korach (2005)Yerushalaim: Uvdot U’Megamut[Jerusalem: facts and trends 2005/2006].The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies,Jerusalem.

Christensen, T. and T. Hogen-Esch (2006)Local politics: a practical guide togoverning at the grassroots. M.E. Sharpe,Armonk, NY.

Clark, W.A.V. and S. Withers (1999)Changing jobs and changing houses:mobility outcomes of employmenttransitions. Journal of Regional Science39.4, 653–73.



Dahan, M. (1998) Ha’uchlusia Ha’hareditVeharashut Ha’mekomit, Helek Alef [Theultra-orthodox Jewish and municipalauthority: Part 1 — income distribution inJerusalem]. The Jerusalem Institute forIsrael Studies, Jerusalem.

Dahan, M. (1999) Ha’uchlusia ha’HareditVeharashut Ha’mekomit, Helek Beit [Theultra-orthodox Jewish and municipalauthority: Part 2 — income distribution inJerusalem]. The Jerusalem Institute forIsrael Studies, Jerusalem.

Dougherty, K.D. and K.R. Huyser (2008)Racially diverse congregations:organizational identity and theaccommodation of differences. Journalfor Scientific Study of Religion 47.1,23–44.

Elior, R. (1987) Chabad, the contemplativeascent to God. In A. Green (ed.), Jewishspirituality from the sixteenth-centuryrevival to the present, CrossroadPublishing, New York, NY.

Elior, R. (1992) The paradoxical ascent togod: the Kabbalistic theosophy of Chabad.State University of New York Press,Albany, NY.

Ellis, M., R. Wright and V. Parks (2004)Work together, live apart? Geographies ofracial and ethnic segregation at home andat work. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 64.3, 620–37.

Etkes, I. and S. Tikochinski (eds.) (2004)Memoirs of the Lithuanian yeshiva. TheZalman Shazar Center for Jewish History,Jerusalem.

Feitelson, E. (1993) An hierarchical approachto the segmentation of residential demand:theory and application. Environment andPlanning A 25.4, 553–69.

Finke, R. (1992) An unsecular America. In S.Bruce (ed.), Religion and modernization:sociologists and historians debate thesecularization thesis, Clarendon Press,Oxford.

Finke, R. (1997) The consequences ofreligious competition: supply-sideexplanations for religious change. In L.A.Young (ed.), Rational choice theory andreligion: summary and assessment,Routledge, New York, NY.

Flint, S., N. Alfasi, and I. Benenson (2010)Bein krovim ve’zarim: micro-segregationshel haredim be’ Yerushalaim [Betweenfriends and strangers: micro-segregation ofHaredim in Jerusalem]. Israeli Sociology12.1, 81–110.

Fossett, M.A. (2006a) Ethnic preferences,social distance dynamics, and residentialsegregation: theoretical explorations usingsimulation analysis. MathematicalSociology 30.3/4, 185–273.

Fossett, M.A (2006b) Including preferenceand social distance dynamics inmulti-factor theories of segregation.Mathematical Sociology 30.3/4,289–98.

Fossett, M. and W. Waren (2005) Overlookedimplications of ethnic preferences forresidential segregation in agent-basedmodels. Urban Studies 42.11, 1893–917.

Friedman, M. (1991) Ha’hevra Ha’haredit —Mekorot, Megamot, Tahalichim [TheHaredi ultra-orthodox society: sources,trends and processes]. Research Series No.41, The Jerusalem Institute for IsraelStudies, Jerusalem.

Gonen, A. (2006) Bein Limud TorahU’parnasa: Hevrat Lomdim UmitparnesimBe’London [Between Torah learning andwage earning: the London experience andlessons for Israel]. The FloersheimerInstitute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem.

Gottdiener, M. (1997) Theming of America:dreams, visions, and commercial spaces.Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Green, A. (2001) Typologies of leadershipand the Hasidic Zaddiq. In D. Assaf (ed.),Zaddik and devotees: historical andsociological aspects of Hasidism, TheZalman Shazar Center for Jewish History,Jerusalem.

Hasson, S. (1996) Maavak al ZivionaHa’tarbuty Shel Yerushalaim [The culturalstruggle over Jerusalem: accommodations,scenarios and lessons]. The FloersheimerInstitute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem.

Hasson, S. (2001) Ha’maavak alAa’hagmonia Be’Yerushalaim [Thestruggle for hegemony in Jerusalem:secular and ultra-orthodox politics]. TheFloersheimer Institute for Policy Studies,Jerusalem.

Hasson, S. and A. Gonen (1997) Ha’metahHa’tarbuty Bein Yeudim Be’Yerushalaim[The cultural tension within Jerusalem’sJewish population]. The FloersheimerInstitute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem.

Hershkovitch, S. (ed.) (2001) Statutory data.Jerusalem Municipality, Jerusalem.

Horowitz, N. (2000) Shas ve’hazionut —nituah history [Shas and Zionism-historicresearch]. Kivunim Hadashim 2,30–60.



Iceland, J. (2003) Beyond black and white:metropolitan residential segregation inmulti-ethnic America. Social ScienceResearch 33.2, 248–71.

Ihlanfeldt, K. and B. Scafidi (2002) Blackself-segregation as a cause of housingsegregation: evidence from themulti-city study of urban inequality.Journal of Urban Economics 51.2,366–90.

Johnston, R.J., M. Poulsen and J. Forrest(2007) The geography of ethnic residentialsegregation: a comparative study of fivecountries. Annals of the Associationof American Geographers 97.4,713–38.

Kasarda, J.D. (1972) The theory of ecologicalexpansion: an empirical test. Social Forces51.2, 165–75.

Kasarda, J.D. (1978) Urbanization,community, and the metropolitan problem.In D. Street (ed.), Handbook ofcontemporary urban life, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA.

Kellerman, A. (1993) Society and settlement:Jewish land of Israel in the 20th century.State University of New York Press,Albany, NY.

Knox, P. (1982) Urban social geography: anintroduction. Longman, London.

Knox, P. and S. Pinch (2000) Urban socialgeography: an introduction. Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kosmin, B.A. and D. de Lange (1980)Conflicting urban ideologies: London’snew towns and the metropolitan preferenceof London’s Jews. The London Journal 6,162–75.

Kosmin, B.A., C. Levy and P. Wigodsky(1979) The social demography ofRedbridge Jewry. Board of Deputies ofBritish Jews, London.

Kusenbach, M. (2008) A hierarchy of urbancommunities: observations on the nestedcharacter of place. City and Community7.3, 225–49.

Larmore, C. (1990) Political liberalism.Political Theory 18.3,339–60.

Lee, T.R. (1977) Race and residence. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Leon, N. (2007) Zikui Harabim: OvadiaYosef’s approach toward religious activismand his place in the Haredi movementwithin Mizrachi Jewry: Studies inContemporary Jewry. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Levy, A. (1988) Ha’haredim [Theultra-orthodox]. Keter, Jerusalem.

Lupo, J. (2004) Ha’im Tahzir Shas AtaraLe’yoshna? [Can Shas restore past glory?].The Floersheimer Institute for PolicyStudies, Jerusalem.

Macedo, S. (1995) Liberal civic educationand religious fundamentalism: the case ofGod v. John Rawls? Ethics 105.3, 468–96.

MacIntyre, A. (1984) After virtue: a study inmoral theory. University of Notre DamePress, Notre Dame, IN.

MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose justice? Whichrationality? University of Notre DamePress, Notre Dame, IN.

Marcuse, P. (1997) The enclave, the citadeland the ghetto. Urban Affairs Review 33.2,228–64.

McNair, D. (2006) Social and spatialsegregation: ethno-national separation andmixing in Belfast. Unpublished PhDdissertation, School of Geography,Archaeology and Paleoecology, Queen’sUniversity, Belfast.

Möbius, M. and T. Rosenblat (2002) Theprocess of ghetto formation: evidencefrom Chicago. Manuscript, Departmentof Economics, Harvard University,Cambridge, MA [WWW document]. URLhttp://www.surveyor.nber.org/home/harvard//papers/chicago-dec7.pdf (accessed30 May 2012).

Montgomery, A.F. (2011) Ghettoes andenclaves in the cross-place realm: mappingsocially bounded places across cities.International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 35.3, 659–75.

Pamuk, A. (2004) Geography of immigrantclusters in global cities: a case study ofSan Francisco, 2000. International Journalof Urban and Regional Research 28.2,287–307.

Peach, C. (2003) The ghetto and the ethnicenclave. In J. Doomernik and H.Knippenberg (eds.), Migration andimmigrants: between policy and reality, avolume in honor of Hans van Amersfoort,Aksant Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.

Phillips, D. (2006) Parallel lives? Challengingdiscourses of British Muslimself-segregation. Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space 24.1,25–40.

Piekarz, M. (1999) Ha’Hanhaga Ha’hasidit[The Hasidic leadership authority and faithin Zadicim]. Bialik Institute PublishingHouse, Jerusalem.



Rabkin, Y. (2006) A threat from within: acentury of Jewish opposition to Zionism.Zed Books, Palgrave Macmillan,London.

Ravizky, A. (2001) Religion and state inJewish philosophy: models of unity,division, collision and subordination. IDIPress, Jerusalem.

Rawls, J.S. (1993) The law of peoples.Critical Inquiry 20.1, 36–68.

Romann, M. and A. Weingrod (1991) Livingtogether separately: Arabs and Jews incontemporary Jerusalem. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Schelling, T. (1971) Dynamic models ofsegregation. Journal of MathematicalSociology 1.2, 143–86.

Schnell, I. and Y. Benjamini (2001) Thesocio-spatial isolation of agents ineveryday life spaces as an aspect ofsegregation. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 91.4, 622–33.

Schnell, I. and Y. Benjamini (2004) Ethnicsegregation in Tel-Aviv — Jaffa. Dela 21,445–60.

Schnell, I. and Y. Benjamini (2005)Globalisation and the structure of urbansocial space: the lesson from Tel Aviv.Urban Studies 42.13, 2489–510.

Semyonov, M. and A. Tyree (1981)Community segregation and the costs ofethnic subordination. Social Forces 59.3,649–66.

Shilhav, Y. (1993) The emergence ofultra-orthodox neighborhoods in Israeliurban centers. In E. Ben-Zadok (ed.),Local communities and the Israeli polity,SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

Shilhav, Y. and M. Friedman (1985)Hitpashtut toch Histagruth: Ha’khilaHa’haredit Be’Yerushalaim [Growth andsegregation: the Haredi community ofJerusalem]. The Jerusalem Institute forIsrael Studies, Jerusalem.

Sivan, E. and K. Caplan (2003) HaredimIsraelim: Hishtalvut lelo Tmiah?[Israeli Haredim: integration withoutassimilation?]. Hakibbutz Hameuhad, TelAviv.

Speare, A. (1974) Residential satisfaction asan intervening variable in residentialmobility. Demography 11.2, 173–88.

Tausch, N., M. Hewstone, K. Schmid, J.Hughes and E.D. Cairns (2011) Extendedcontact effects as a function of closeness

of relationship with ingroup contacts.Group Processes and Intergroup Relations14.2, 239–54.

Telles, E. (1995) Structural sources ofsocioeconomic segregation in Brazilianmetropolitan areas. The American Journalof Sociology 100.5, 1199–223.

Valins, O. (2003) Stubborn identities and theconstruction of socio-spatial boundaries:ultra-orthodox Jews living in contemporaryBritain. Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers 28.2,158–75.

Varady, D. (ed.) (2005) Desegregating thecity: ghettos, enclaves, and inequality.State University of New York Press,Albany, NY.

Wahlstrom, A.K. (2005) Liberal democraciesand encompassing religious communities:a defense of autonomy andaccommodation. Journal of SocialPhilosophy 36.1, 31–48.

Walks, R.A. and L.S. Bourne (2006) Ghettosin Canada’s cities? Racial segregation,ethnic enclaves and poverty concentrationin Canadian urban areas. CanadianGeographer 50.3, 273–97.

Waterman, S. and B.A. Kosmin (1986)Mapping an unenumerated ethnicpopulation: Jews in London. Ethnic andRacial Studies 9.4, 484–501.

Waterman, S. and B.A. Kosmin (1987)Residential change in a middle-classsuburban ethnic population: a comment.Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 12.1, 107–12.

Waterman, S. and B.A. Kosmin (1988)Residential patterns and processes: a studyof Jews in three London boroughs.Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 13.1, 79–95.

Yiftachel, O. and B. Roded (2010) Abraham’surban footsteps: political geography andreligious radicalism in Israel/Palestine. InN. AlSayyad and M. Massoumi (eds.), Thefundamentalist city? Religiosity and theremaking of urban space, Routledge,London.

Zelkin, M. (2005) Social status and authorityin 19th-century Lithuanian Jewishcommunities. In J. Verbickiene (ed.),Central and East European Jews at thecrossroads of tradition and modernity, TheCenter for Studies of East European Jews,Vilnius.



between the individual and the community: …bennya/publications/ijurr2013...between the individual...

Documents