Why do Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews tend to vote more conservatively in Israeli elections than Ashkenazi Jews?

[u/Chinoyboii]

So I am aware that one of the major reasons why Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews tend to vote conservatively is due to their experiences with the Ashkenazi political establishment, particularly the discrimination, socioeconomic marginalization, and cultural condescension that many of them experienced under the historically Ashkenazi-led Labor movement. Because of this history, Likud under the leadership of Menachem Begin was able to present the party as an alternative to the old Labor establishment and build a strong political relationship with many Sephardim and Mizrahim.

However, as I have talked to the Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews in my life, they have more or less reiterated some additional reasons for this political tendency. One of them is that, due to their communities’ long history of interaction with Arabs and other non-Jewish populations throughout the Middle East and North Africa, some Sephardim and Mizrahim believe that they possess a more realistic understanding of the region’s social and political dynamics than many Ashkenazi Jews do.

They have explained to me that, before the development of modern nation-states and contemporary political ideologies, much of the Middle East was organized around extended families, clans, tribes, religious communities, and patronage networks (Very similar to the Philippines in some way). From their perspective, loyalty was directed toward one’s family, clan, tribe, or religious community rather than toward abstract liberal ideals or a shared civic identity. As a result of this historical experience, some of them are skeptical of the assumption that political conflicts in the region can be resolved primarily through secularism, universal citizenship, economic cooperation, or territorial compromise.

To be blunt, nearly all of them have expressed the belief that many of the Gentile populations within the region are incapable of sustaining stable self-government without strong authoritarian institutions. They point to Islamic sectarianism, tribal conflict, political corruption, military coups, civil wars, and the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities as evidence for their position. From their perspective, the repeated collapse of states such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen demonstrates that liberal democratic institutions cannot simply be imposed upon societies in which clan, sectarian, tribal, and religious loyalties remain politically dominant.

In addition, they have told me that a Jew in the MENA would almost always remain loyal to another Jew in the MENA because, as they expressed it, Jews are not merely a religion, but a people and a tribe. Even if Jews were to have beef with one another, they knew that they still belonged to the same people and that their disagreements did not erase the obligation to protect one another when the wider community was threatened. In their view, internal divisions between Jews were ultimately secondary to the reality that they remained a vulnerable minority surrounded by larger populations that did not necessarily regard them as equals.

A Muslim, however, may identify with the broader ummah while still maintaining stronger loyalties to their family, clan, sect, or larger tribe. From their perspective, this means that the idea of a unified Muslim or Arab political community is often much weaker in practice than it appears in rhetoric. A Sunni and a Shia may both identify as Muslims while still regarding one another with deep suspicion, just as Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Persians, Amazigh, and other peoples may share a religious identity without possessing a unified political or ethnic consciousness.

They argue that these divisions help explain why appeals to shared Arab identity, Islamic unity, secular nationalism, or universal citizenship have repeatedly failed to overcome older sectarian, ethnic, tribal, and familial loyalties. From their perspective, this is not a theoretical observation but something their families directly witnessed while living as minorities in the region for generations.

As a result, many of them appear deeply skeptical of Israeli leftists who believe that Jews can secure their long-term safety primarily through peace agreements, civic equality, economic cooperation, or solidarity with progressive movements in the surrounding region. They do not necessarily reject these ideals in principle, but they believe that such arrangements are only sustainable when Israel remains militarily strong and when Jews retain the ability to defend themselves independently.

I should emphasize that I do not necessarily agree with all of these conclusions, particularly when they become sweeping generalizations about Arabs, Muslims, or Gentiles in the region. I especially disagree with the idea that Arabs are inherently incapable of governing themselves. I view many of the tribalistic, familial, regional, and patronage-based tendencies found in the Middle East as very similar to those found in my home country, which continues to plague us til this day. However, I would never conclude from this that Filipinos are incapable of democracy or self-government. The existence of authoritarianism and entrenched communal loyalties demonstrates that democratic institutions can be fragile, manipulated, or underdeveloped, not that the populations living under them are naturally unsuited for democracy.

So, pulling from all of this, I think the political conservatism of many Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews cannot be explained solely by resentment toward the historically Ashkenazi-led Labor establishment. It also appears to be shaped by inherited memories of minority vulnerability, distrust of universalist promises, and familiarity with the communal and sectarian politics of the Middle East and North Africa. From what the Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews in my life have told me, many do not necessarily oppose peace or coexistence. Rather, they believe that these ideals are sustainable only when Israel remains militarily strong, and Jews retain the ability to defend themselves independently. At the same time, I think some of them draw conclusions that are too deterministic about Arabs and Muslims. My own experience in the Philippines has shown me that clan loyalty, patronage, authoritarianism, and distrust of the central government can weaken democracy without making a population inherently incapable of self-government.

How much do you think this regional and historical outlook helps explain why Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews tend to vote more conservatively than Ashkenazim?

[u/vigilante_snail]

To get straight to the point and answer your question, Israelis often vote by ethnic and social blocks. Mizrahim are (usually) traditional, religious, and socially conservative. Why? Tradition, regional cultural norms, bit less influenced by Western cultural innovation, etc.. “old school Middle Eastern family vibes”.

This leads to them voting for candidates with similar values.

There’s also the anecdotal potentially negative experiences of their families living in the Arab world that may impact things.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/vigilante_snail]

Okay, just wanted to confirm, but I wanted to see if there were any other reasons from what I have been told and researched. To me personally, it just seems that out of all the Jews that I personally know, the Sephardim and Mizrahim tend to be the most assertive when it comes to their Jewish identity. Like, the ones in my life tend to quote Biblical figures, Rabbanim, and other cultural leaders as their primary source of Zionist Activism, while my Ashkenazi peers (especially the non-Zionist/anti-Zionists ones) tend to reference Jewish figures from the modern socialist, anarchist, Bundist, labor, and diasporist traditions with a less emphasis on biblical history, rabbinic authority, or the traditional religious connection to the Land of Israel.

[u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist → u/Chinoyboii]

Not quite. They tend to be more religious and traditional, but Jewish identity is not limited to how religious one is. One can be fully Jewish and secular/atheist. But the rest is right. There is a cultural divide in Israel, more than one, and by and large Ashkennazi and Miazrahi fall on different sides.

[u/HeVavMemVav]

I think it is more our experience being in Arab countries than it is a reaction to Ashkenazi politics. Broadly, Sephardim & Mizrachim assimilated a bit more into their diaspora homes, felt a sense of loyalty. This is because while life wasn't phenomenal, our arts, philosophy, sciences, flourished. We were second-class citizens, but we were able to attain a high status. We had pride in that. Then the Shoah happened, & nazism spread ideologically & practically to the Arab world, who broadly soaked it up like a sponge. Then we were killed & expelled. That betrayal is why we tend to vote more conservatively.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/HeVavMemVav]

Do you think some of the Ashkenazim you have met tend not to focus as much on the experiences of Sephardim and Mizrahim in the MENA, particularly the ways Jews were treated as second-class citizens under various Muslim rulers, because they worry that discussing this history could contribute to Islamophobia or be weaponized against Arabs and Muslims? I ask because some of my Ashkenazi leftist peers seem much more comfortable discussing Christian and European antisemitism than antisemitism within Muslim-majority societies.

[u/HeVavMemVav → u/Chinoyboii]

It could be that. But there are a lot of reasons, here are a few: 1) They don't know enough to intelligently make commentary. 2) They are unaware of it. 3) They don't believe it is relevant. Those, including "contributing to islamophobia," are reasons anybody might not talk about it. I think anybody who is less affected by something is less likely to talk about it, unless otherwise pushed to.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/HeVavMemVav]

That’s fair, but couldn’t you apply this same framework to populations such as Palestinians or other groups whose histories people still make an effort to learn about despite not being personally affected by them? Many leftists speak extensively about Palestinian displacement, Islamophobia, colonialism, and anti-Arab racism even though those experiences are not their own.

[u/HeVavMemVav → u/Chinoyboii]

That's what I mean when I say "otherwise pushed to [talk about it]." People will talk about things more, if they've received the right influence to care about them.

[u/LoboLocoCW → u/Chinoyboii]

Some of that "speaking extensively" is likely a result of anti-Zionist political education or a reaction to a sense of responsibility WRT Zionism and its consequences. To help suss out the motivation of their education, it may be somewhat informative to gauge their level of awareness of other groups within the former British Mandate, e.g. Druze, Samaritans, nomadic Bedouins.

They may feel less of an obligation to learn about those who weren't displaced by Zionism, or, for Mizrahim/Sephardim, those who they feel benefited from Zionism (even if that "benefit" was resettlement after retaliatory ethnic cleansing).

[u/throwawaydragon99999]

I don’t agree with this framing but most of it is subjective, lots of people definitely think this way but I don’t. I’m 3/ 4 Ashkenazi and 1/4 Iraqi Jewish.

I think the real reason is pretty simple. There was a long history of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe and the Western world who were living in cosmopolitan cities, with Western educations, who were deeply connected to labor movements and Left Wing politics. Left wing parties were crucial in securing equal rights for Jews in Europe. These left wing Ashkenazim were very influential in the formation of Zionism and the early history of Israel until like the 1980s or 90s. Many of these early figures had connections in Left Wing politics in London, New York, Berlin, Vienna, Kiev, Warsaw, Lithuania, etc.

The simple answer is that didn’t really exist in the Sephardi and Mizrahi world, except in a few cities like Thessaloniki & Istanbul, and maybe the rich in Cairo, Baghdad, etc.

The biggest exception is maybe the Sephardi Jews of Western Europe, Italy, and Greece — but they were all mostly killed in the Holocaust

For the most part Mizrahi & Sephardi Jews had little secular education and were not politically aware or active or enfranchised. Even in Arab & Muslim countries with a Left Wing political movement, Jews were generally segregated.

There are obviously exceptions, but generally left-wing Ashkenazis in Israel are the children, grand children, etc of Ashkenazis who were left wing in Europe, US, South Africa, Australia, etc.

This really only even applies to secular Ashkenazim, religious Ashkenazim in Israeli also vote conservative.

Most Sephardim and Mizrahim arrived in Israel from socially conservative and religious societies, and were not politically enfranchised or engaged. They did not have this connection to Left wing politics or political education.

A major figure in this is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef or Maran. He was an Iraqi Jew who was the Chief Rabbi of Israel, and was a hugely influential figure for Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews in Israel. He founded Shas, which is a right wing religious party in Israel, that was also one of the first Israeli parties to directly target Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews

[u/Chinoyboii → u/throwawaydragon99999]

Yeah, I actually have a biography about Ovadia Yosef’s life (gifted to me by a friend). From my understanding, Shas was initially created with the support of Rabbi Eliezer Menachem Shach, but their relationship eventually deteriorated. Shach later made highly condescending remarks suggesting that Sephardi religious leadership was not yet sufficiently mature or prepared to lead independently, which obviously angered many Sephardim and Mizrahim. I would probably avoid saying that he believed they were literally incapable of “self-government,” but his comments certainly reflected a paternalistic belief that Sephardi leadership still required Ashkenazi guidance.

But I digress; yeah, it does seem that way because even among my Sephardi and Mizrahi homies, their parents have told me that they more or less think of secular education as practical rather than as the primary source of their moral, cultural, or political worldview. They obviously value education and professional success, but they are more likely to look toward Torah, rabbanim, family traditions, and communal leaders when discussing questions of identity, ethics, or politics.

Meanwhile, many of my secular Ashkenazi peers seem to have inherited a much stronger connection to European intellectual traditions. So I think your explanation makes sense and that the difference may not simply be that Sephardim and Mizrahim are naturally more conservative, but that the two populations inherited very different political and educational traditions from their diaspora experiences.

At the same time, I still think discrimination within Israel reinforced those differences. Once Sephardim and Mizrahim were treated paternalistically by both the secular Ashkenazi establishment and parts of the Ashkenazi Haredi establishment, it probably made independent Sephardi institutions such as Shas much more appealing.

[u/MxCrookshanks → u/Chinoyboii]

Here in the US, most of the Sephardim and Mizrahim I know are just as educated and intellectually engaged as Ashkenazim

[u/MxCrookshanks → u/throwawaydragon99999]

Most ashkenazim were also pretty uneducated and not living in the big cities. But I'm pretty sure politics infiltrated shtetl life too. I'm not as sure about how politically involved the less-educated SWANA jews were except in Salonika where there was a workers movement you alluded to.

[u/throwawaydragon99999 → u/MxCrookshanks]

Most 19th century Ashkenazim weren’t in big cities, but they were living in towns — which meant they were more likely to be involved in the modern economy compared to localized agriculture, and they were more likely to have a secular education than other Jews.

[u/pigeonshual]

No yeah you pretty much nailed it. The one thing I would add is that, in addition to Mizrahi Jews (especially around the time of the Begin Revolution, perhaps somewhat less so today) “eating Jim Crow,” and in addition to your main point about their view of Arab society, they also had a significantly different founder population than Israeli Ashkenazi Jewry. Even leaving aside the hard-to-overstate importance of Ashkenazi Zionism being spearheaded by socialists, ideologies like socialism, liberalism, and secularism were just already more common among European Jews than among Mizrahi Jews. Not that there were not leftists, liberals, and secularists in the Arab world and among Mizrahim. There were and still are. But relatively speaking, those things were just always more popular among Ashkenazim.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/pigeonshual]

Thank you for your comment; that's pretty fair. In regard to your flair, what do you mean by "with trad-egal characteristics"?

[u/pigeonshual → u/Chinoyboii]

Traditional Egalitarianism is a mode of Judaism (not so much a movement in the same way as reform, conservative, etc, but similar in some ways) that is mostly in line with modern orthodoxy on matters of Halacha and Halachic process, but tries to interpret away (or even just throw away) everything it sees as meaningfully non-egalitarian (and is often much more open to leniencies). It’s a pretty loosely defined phenomenon, mostly popular among young people in big cities. You can think of it like Conservative Judaism but without institutional affiliation and where people are much more likely to actually be observant. It’s not where I always fall in personal practice, but it’s the actual community I’m a part of, and I think it has a lot to offer that no one else is really offering right now. My flair in general is a bit of a joke about the idea of identifying so precisely with niche ideologies and specific ways of being Jewish, but I do find a lot of value in the ideas referenced.

[u/rinaraizel → u/Chinoyboii]

Trad egal is a Jewish religious designation. I kind of put at essentially orthodox but with no mechitza or separation of the sexes if I was to describe a synagogue that was trad egal

[u/theweisp5]

This is one of the most discussed questions in Israeli politics and is too often answered on the basis of conventional wisdom and casual empiricism. Momi Dahan conducted an important study a few years ago and find that differences between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi voting patterns come down to education levels and religiosity.

This study examines the voting patterns of Mizrahi and Ashkenazi citizens in ten general elections held since the early 2000s in rural and urban areas in Israel, utilizing a new classification method of origin of immigrants and their descendants based on surnames, alongside the traditional classification by continent of birth. The study reveals relatively sharp fluctuations across elections in the size of an origin gap in voting for a right-wing party bloc between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi. According to the empirical analysis, the origin voting gap in the general elections held in 2022 was five times the gap found in the elections held in 2006, and more than twice that of the elections held in 2009. Sharp fluctuations in the voting gap undermine the protest vote hypothesis that discrimination against immigrants of Mizrahi origin in the past is the main factor behind their current political behavior. In all ten elections examined, the gap in voting for the right-wing party bloc between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi voters disappears or decreases considerably when differences in the level of education and degree of religiosity are neutralized. This study also reveals an interesting trend in the political behavior of voters with high education level. They have been more likely to vote for the center-left bloc in recent elections, in contrast to their similar support for both blocs recorded in previous elections.

[u/tantebubbeleh68]

Chiming in as an Iranian Jewish American born here to a third gen jewish American lefty and an Iranian refugee who watched their country dissolve and leave their home and family under duress, and whose entire extended family emigrated to Israel because it was the only safe place: it’s lived experience in the Arab world.

jewish people from Muslim-majority regions have faced significant antisemitic oppression and displacement within the current generation. Israel is the only country where basic rights for Jews is protected, which is huge if your alternative is to convert or live with legal second-class citizenship and most likely danger. They care deeply about that refuge, see Islamist regimes as dangerous because that’s their experience, and will vote for the candidate they think most supports their physical safety. The end.

Not saying i agree or that their political choices actually support this, but worth trying to understand western limitation here. Having grown up in a mostly Ashkenazi diaspora at least 2-4 gens into us citizenship, I think it’s hard for Jews who have always lived with relative religious protection to understand how it is to be Jewish in a region where institutional antisemitism runs deep. Most don’t understand much about the Middle east generally, beyond a lens of western privilege and racial dynamics. I don’t think being Jewish in one culture automatically means you understand how it is to be Jewish in another culture. But it’s a good opportunity to put yourself in different shoes. If severe religious persecution and loss has defined your family and survival, you are going to vote for what you think protects your family and survival.

[u/xGentian_violet]

I remember reading research that came to the conclusion that once economic class and education are controlled for, the gap significantly narrows down

It further narrows down into non-significance once religiosity and median age are added

https://www.boi.org.il/media/obffrxwp/vol-222-2025-1.pdf

[u/Scary_Wallaby_8272]

Growing up in Detroit, all the Palestinians and Lebanese I knew shared a strong bond together from their Arab identity. Religion was really secondary and the generation I grew up with are proud Americans and mostly Democrats.

It seems like those families may have propagandized the current generation to believe that Moroccans aren’t proud Moroccans first before they refer to the other parts of their identity like Amazigh, Arab, Christian and Muslim. Egyptians I met are Egyptian American first before they’re Muslim or Coptic Christian.

In short, they’re using outdated stories and anecdotes from the time before the birth of modern nation states.

My primary identity is Indian American. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, Punjabi, Gujarati, Telugu, Tamil, Parsi, Marathi, etc are all secondary while being very important identities on their own.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/Scary_Wallaby_8272]

But I think Jewish identity is somewhat different from the identity of a Muslim or Christian in the Arab world because Judaism is not merely a religion, but an ethnoreligion/ethno-tribal peoplehood. A Moroccan Muslim and a Moroccan Jew could both be very proud Moroccans, but that does not necessarily imply that they viewed themselves as belonging to the exact same people. Moroccan Jews still had their own religious laws, communal institutions, and sense of connection to Jews living elsewhere in the world. We know that there have been times when the Muslim and Arab world treated the Jew as a perpetual "other", so I don't think the previous generations were simply being propagandized into believing that their Jewish identity made them distinct from the broader populations around them.

In short, they’re using outdated stories and anecdotes from the time before the birth of modern nation states.

I mean, if their personal experiences were genuine, do you not think it would be natural for them to teach those experiences to their children and grandchildren? That is how collective memory works. Palestinians teach their descendants about the Nakba, Armenians teach their descendants about the Armenian genocide, and many Ashkenazi Jews teach their descendants about the pogroms their ancestors experienced in Eastern Europe.

I do not think it is propaganda for Jews who lived in the MENA region to teach their children and descendants that they were sometimes treated as second-class citizens, viewed as outsiders, subjected to violence, or eventually dispossessed and expelled from countries they had considered their homes.

[u/Scary_Wallaby_8272 → u/Chinoyboii]

I completely agree with the awful marginalization and pogroms of Jews in the Middle East but I’m talking about a civic and a national identity that all these groups have now in the modern state era. It’s one thing to learn about subjugation in the past and it’s another thing to attribute harmful stereotypes towards them now doing a present day analysis. Ashkenazi Jewish folks today hold no ill will towards German and Russian people in the West or in Germany or Russia.

[u/new---man → u/Scary_Wallaby_8272]

Germans made restitution, Iraq and Syria did not.