On zero states – Ofri Ilany in Haaretz:

‘Exile is all the rage again. In recent months, a variety of reports have been published about a significant wave of immigration from Israel, beginning in October last year. But the numbers are just one facet of a deeper phenomenon. Another facet is the emergence of an energetic discourse about the return to the Galut, among intellectual circles that consist mainly of former Israelis. As far back as last year, Ho!, a literary magazine edited by poet Dory Manor, dedicated an issue to the Diaspora, declaring a turning point in Hebrew culture: Many Hebrew writers don't live in Israel, and a significant portion of Hebrew literature has gone back to being written and read outside the country's borders.
The exile conversation has sprung up in academic circles as well. In June, an ambitious conference was held in Berlin titled "Between State and Exile," with some of the most prominent scholars of Jewish studies and Jewish political thought participating. Among them were former Israelis, including philosophers Adi Ophir and Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, who in the past were leading figures in Israel's anti-Zionist academic left, and philosopher and translator Elad Lapidot, who lives in Berlin.’

(…)

‘The thinkers behind the Diaspora idea offer a variety of other positions as well. And yet, most prioritize the "de-Zionification" of Israel, meaning canceling the extra rights Jews have in the area between the Jordan River and the sea. The idea of a single, democratic state isn't new, and has been rolling around non-Zionist circles for a long time. What has changed since October is that this vision now appears even more utopian than before – the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has taken a murderous, desperate turn, and it's hard even to imagine the two peoples sharing the land in harmony. This is why, if not explicitly, exile has been added as a type of alternative for Jews in the post-Zionist era: "If you don't like decolonization, move to the Diaspora. We're already there."’

(…)

‘In this context, the exile and Diaspora discourse functions as an expression of the individualistic and privatized character of the educated class these days. Leaving is a solution for individuals: Many people are leaving Israel, if they have the legal and financial means, but each is taking care only of himself/herself or his/her family. This is not a collective effort.
Ironically, the anti-Zionist former Israelis are copying the modus operandi of Zionist pioneers, who left their families behind in Russia and Poland, and dismissed Diaspora life. But it doesn't have to be this way. If the exiles want to get serious, the Zionist movement can provide inspiration. Because while Zionism started out as a literary idea, it quickly won the backing of leaders, wheeler-dealers and lobbyists who were prepared to get their hands dirty.’

(…)

‘It looks like the Diaspora vision is attractive particularly because it is elitist and individualist. It's unlikely that its advocates actually want it to come true.’

Read the article here.

Another question is whether the Europeans are happy with the return (if that’s the word) of the Israelis.

Exile might a be a solution. I’m a reluctant Diasporist.

But I have asked the question before: do we take the atomic bomb with us?

I would say, yes. Some guests arrive with a few suitcases, others with an atomic bomb. They come prepared.