Arab‑Jewish Roots and Israeli Exclusion: Avi Shlaim’s Story of Displacement and Disillusion

Avi Shlaim, an eminent historian of the Israel‑Palestine conflict, sat down with Middle East Eye’s Mohamed Hashem in a candid interview released on 28 September 2026. The conversation traced Shlaim’s early life in Baghdad, his family’s migration to Israel, and the personal and ideological ruptures that led him from early Zionist enthusiasm to a staunch anti‑Zionist stance. In the footage, Shlaim repeatedly emphasized how his Arab background rendered him a “second‑class Israeli,” a sentiment that underscores the broader marginalisation of Arab‑Jewish communities within the Jewish state. His testimony offers a rare, human‑centred lens on the lingering legacies of displacement, cultural erasure and the contested narratives that continue to shape the region’s politics.

Baghdad’s Flourishing Jewish Community

Shlaim began by recalling the vibrant Jewish quarter of Baghdad, where his family lived before the 1950s. He described a community that, contrary to popular assumptions, did not suffer from overt anti‑Jewish violence. The interview’s opening minutes stress that “Iraq didn’t have a Jewish problem,” indicating that the community’s eventual exodus was driven more by political currents than by local persecution.

The historian noted that Baghdad’s Jews were deeply integrated into the city’s cultural and economic life. They spoke Arabic as a mother tongue, celebrated local customs, and participated in the broader Iraqi society. This integration, he argued, made the later forced migration all the more disorienting, as families were uprooted from a familiar world into an alien environment.

Shlaim’s recollections align with historical accounts of Iraq’s long‑standing, albeit complex, Jewish presence. While the community faced periodic restrictions, the historian’s personal memory underscores a period of relative coexistence that is often eclipsed by later narratives of exile.

The Forced Departure and Arrival in Israel

At the age of five, Shlaim’s family left Baghdad for the newly‑established State of Israel. The interview places this move at the early 1950s, a time when the Israeli government encouraged the immigration of Jews from Arab lands. Shlaim’s family, like many Arab‑Jewish households, arrived with hopes of a new beginning but quickly encountered a starkly different reality.

In the footage, Shlaim describes the disorienting transition from an Arabic‑speaking environment to a Hebrew‑dominant society. He recounts the cultural shock of being placed in absorption camps where language barriers and unfamiliar customs compounded the sense of loss. The historian emphasises that his family’s Arab identity, rather than being celebrated, became a source of suspicion and marginalisation.

These early experiences of alienation laid the groundwork for Shlaim’s later critique of Israeli society. The interview highlights that the sense of being a “second‑class Israeli” began not with political disagreements, but with everyday encounters that reminded him of his outsider status.

Motherhood as a Silent Hero

Midway through the conversation, Shlaim turned his focus to his mother, whom he described as the “real hero” of his story. He praised her resilience in preserving cultural memory and nurturing a sense of dignity despite the hardships of displacement. The interview underscores how his mother’s quiet strength shaped his understanding of identity and belonging.

Shlaim recounted that his mother maintained Arabic language and customs within the household, providing a cultural anchor for the family. This act of preservation was, in his view, a subtle form of resistance against the pressure to fully assimilate into the dominant Israeli narrative.

The historian’s tribute to his mother also serves as a broader commentary on the often‑overlooked role of women in the diaspora experience. Their efforts to sustain cultural practices become crucial threads that bind displaced communities together, even when official policies aim to erase such identities.

The Unraveling of Zionist Beliefs

Initially, Shlaim’s family had embraced Zionism as a pathway to safety and self‑determination. However, as he grew older, the historian’s personal encounters with discrimination prompted a profound reassessment. The interview marks the turning point around the early 2000s, when Shlaim began to question the moral foundations of the Israeli project.

He described how the daily experience of being treated as an “other” within Israel eroded his faith in the state’s egalitarian promises. The historian’s narrative links personal humiliation to a broader critique of a system that privileges a particular ethnic identity while marginalising Arab‑Jewish citizens.

Shlaim’s shift from Zionist optimism to “fierce” anti‑Zionism was not abrupt but evolved through a series of reflections on historical injustices, including the displacement of Palestinians. He argued that the same logic that justified the exodus of Jews from Arab lands was later employed to rationalise the removal of Palestinians from their homes.

The Right‑Wing Surge and Its Impact

In the later portion of the interview, Shlaim examined the rise of the Israeli right‑wing and its implications for minority citizens. He noted that the political climate intensified the sense of exclusion for Arab‑Jews, as nationalist rhetoric increasingly equated Israeli identity with a singular, Hebrew‑centric narrative.

The historian highlighted specific policies and public discourses that reinforced a hierarchy of belonging, marginalising those whose backgrounds did not fit the dominant mold. He argued that the right‑wing’s emphasis on security and historic claims often eclipsed the human rights of both Palestinians and Arab‑Jewish Israelis.

Shlaim’s assessment suggests that the political shift not only hardened Israel’s stance towards the Palestinians but also deepened internal divisions. The interview implies that any sustainable solution must address these layered inequities, recognising the pluralistic fabric of Israeli society.

The Illusion of a Two‑State Solution

Concluding the interview, Shlaim asserted that the “two‑state solution was never born.” He contended that the very premise of partition was a diplomatic construct that never materialised into a viable framework on the ground. According to Shlaim, the persistent expansion of settlements and the entrenchment of occupation have rendered the notion of two independent states increasingly untenable.

He argued that the failure to create a genuine two‑state reality stems from a lack of political will and from policies that systematically undermine Palestinian self‑determination. The historian’s perspective, rooted in personal experience of exclusion, frames the two‑state discourse as a rhetorical tool rather than a concrete pathway to peace.

Shlaim’s final reflections call for a re‑examination of the international legal standards that govern occupation, displacement and the right of return. By foregrounding his own story of marginalisation, he invites a broader conversation about how historical injustices intersect with contemporary human‑rights violations, urging the global community to confront the structural inequities that perpetuate the conflict.

By Fatima Al-Rashid, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Middle East Eye video report (28 September 2026); Middle East Eye; Global1.News