Is Israel destroying itself?
JVL Introduction
We are pleased to share this interview with Professor Emeritus Avi Shlaim who is known as an expert on Israel and Palestine. He has written several books and spoken at countless meetings and given countless lectures and yet he has never been interviewed by the mainstream media, not even over his book “Memoirs of an Arab Jew”.
In this interview he says that after October 7th 2023 he was reluctant to use the term “genocide” at first, although some used it from day one, not least because of the genocidal utterances of so many Israeli leaders. He has had no hesitation applying that term for some time. Looking back he also notes that the two state solution is not just dead. It was never born, because no Israeli government of any color since 1967 has offered a concrete formula acceptable even to the most moderate Palestinian leaders.
Furthermore he notes that while western leaders keep saying that they are committed to a two state solution, they have done nothing to bring it about.
He also puts the October 7th attack in context while deploring all attacks on civilians. “It’s not really a conflict but a colonial occupation of Palestinian land. The real issue is Israel’s military occupation. It’s the most prolonged and brutal military occupation of modern times. That’s the real background; the October 7 Hamas attack is an expression of Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation….The past is crucial for understanding how we got here. It’s my job as a historian to put Hamas’s behavior in its proper historical context.
LL
This article was originally published by Jacobin on Tue 13 Jan 2026. Read the original here.
Israel, From Genocide to Self-Destruction
The genocide in Gaza radicalizes Zionism’s long-standing colonial project. But Israeli leaders’ open rejection of any future possibility of a Palestinian state have undercut their own international legitimacy.
Loading article text…
Once again, Avi Shlaim speaks with admirable clarity, precision and carefully considered conclusions, and with great humanity as a historian based on the evidence before us.
Sadly, though I want to, I can’t agree with Avi Shlaim, I don’t see a future for the ‘other’ in our world as states turn increasingly towards their purist brutality of fascism. The ICJ has been shown to be impotent as America and Britain hosted Netanyahu and Herzog respectively. Germany and Britain continue to supply Israel with weapons whilst Britain mouths that Palestine should be recognised as a state. And all the while other leaders watch and know that they too can destroy the ‘other’ because Israel can get away with it.
This analysis of the history deserves a wide reading and an international debate starting in the UN on how to move forward, and also a total rejection of Trump’s proposals and a return to the proper role of the United Nations in promoting a real peaceful solution. The sidelining of the UN in numerous ways lies behind the commission of genocide against the Palestinians. Moreover, what can we do to get our own government to stop supporting Israel behind closed doors as if there is peace, when not a day goes by when Israel is not dropping bombs. And who will take the lead in delivering Netanyahu to the International Criminal Court? And who will convince the Guardian and the BBC among many others to publish Abi Schlaim’s statement? (Please do not publish my name or my email address, or else do not publish this comment. Thank you.)
Thank you for this. the boo offers helpful reading. And the conclusion, ‘free Palestine’ in inevitable if long delayed.
Avi Shlaim makes an eloquent, passionate and totally convincing case. It is utterly shameful that Starmer and the British Government have been so deeply and actively complicit in this genocide. They will not be forgiven.
The conclusion that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza is strengthened by the fact that respected Israeli Holocaust scholars themselves have identified the situation as fitting the classic definition of genocide, giving the argument strong academic and moral credibility.