The title words are Hebrew for "ascent for the purpose of descent"; aliya ("ascent to Zion") is also a common word for Jewish immigration to Israel, while yerida ("descent from Zion") is a common word for Israeli emigration from Israel.
I think the above is a good descriptor for the process of
- one making aliya to, settling in, and raising children in Israel
- the children or grandchildren deciding to make yerida from Israel and settling in the United States, Canada or the UK
This process runs parallel, IMO, to the process of going to Israel as a "Jew" (i.e., Jewish-American) and moving out of Israel as an "Israeli" (i.e., Israeli-American).
I think that this process is a by-product, a distinct by-product, of Zionism as an ethnoreligious strategy: by defining the Jewish people within an ethnic construct and creating a homeland where both secular and religious Jews could reside as a majority ethnicity, the Jewish people (who have long been stuck within an ethnoreligious identity that was felt by non-Jewish citizens, for whatever anti-abstentionist reason, as a stumbling block to the greater national identity) could be normalized or nationalized so that they are no longer seen (as much) as an anomaly ethnicity that is identified more by ethnoreligious origins, but more as an ethnic group that is identified more by ethnonational origins. Of course, the two identities have already existed throughout modern history (with the Religious Zionist current in Israel being a mostly local, religionationalistic phenomenon), but only recently has the latter been more empasized.
However, this transformative secularization of ethnic identity is also a potential source of polarization between those who would readily identify themselves more as "Israeli-" (for ethnonationalistic reasons) and those who would identify themselves as "Jewish-" (for ethnoreligious reasons). The appelation "Israeli-" indicates the bearer of the identity has placed upon oneself the layer of nationality (similar to Armenian-American, Colombian-French, etc.), while the appelation "Jewish-" indicates that the bearer of this identity is content to remain upon the identity layer of religion (akin to Muslim-Indian, Chaldean-Australian, Hindu-Surinamese, etc.). Reasons for retaining the "Jewish-" appelation include, among the Haredi (the most orthodox of the Orthodox), personal or religious opposition to the establishment of Israel prior to the return of the Jewish messiah; among secular Jewish- people, it may be opposition to settling in a violent hotbox of conflict or opposition to specific Israeli policies. However, reasons for retaining or gaining the "Israeli-" appelation include being able to retain identification with family and pop culture from Israel, camaradery with other Israelis who’ve made yerida, and (if they are a bit more outgoing) develop redefinition of oneself (or allow one’s children’s redefinition of themselves) outside the religious construct and dictates of the home country’s majority.
This, IMO, is one of the questions of ethnic identity: what flavor allows for greater personal breathing space and mutual ideological freedom? Are there benefits and detriments to considering oneself by nationality compared to those for considering oneself by religion/ideology?
I personally think that, when persecution and vilification of, or inordinate violence against a people begins, it is less tied to nationality or race and more tied to assumptions concerning the thought process, beliefs or mentalities of those being persecuted.
When it is the Jews, it is usually backed by assumptions that the Jews are easily unpatriotic and third-columnist profiteers. When its Black people, it is usually backed by assumptions that the blacks are biologically oriented toward violence, rape and robbery. When it is the Roma people, it is usually backed by assumptions that they are culturally beholden to trickery and swindling. When it is those with mental/neurological syndromes, it is usually backed by assumptions that they are a bit more assertive on gaining "special treatment", ad infinitum. They are all seen as threats to the strength and well-being of the state.
So is it true that the only way to gain any further inch of respect, or any lesser inch of specialistic vilification in the diaspora is to ethnically identify oneself by nationalistic terms rather than religious, ideological or mental terms? Is nationalistic identity less "ideological" than religious identity?
Maybe this equates to the negation of one diaspora for the propogation of another.
