Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in recent months has emerged as one of the fiercest internal critics of his country’s war in Gaza. Olmert has repeatedly excoriated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over its prosecution of the war—and in late May accused Israel of committing war crimes in a scathing op-ed for Haaretz. Olmert, who was Israel’s prime minister from 2006 to 2009, is perhaps the most prominent voice within Israel to make such an allegation.
The former leader also recently warned that a proposal by Israel’s defense minister to move most of Gaza’s population to a closed-off “humanitarian city” in the south of the enclave would amount to establishing a “concentration camp” for Palestinians. Netanyahu’s office responded by referring to Olmert—who spent 16 months in prison on corruption charges—as a “convicted felon disgracing Israel on CNN.”
In an interview with Foreign Policy on Tuesday, Olmert expanded on his recent criticism of the country that he once led, while also explaining why he’s avoided explicitly leveling allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing, which Israel has been accused of by a number of countries and top human rights groups.
Olmert also offered his thoughts on growing international criticism of Israel over the war in Gaza, the recent killings of Palestinians seeking food, the prospects for a cease-fire and hostage deal, Israel’s recent conflict with Iran, and why he believes Netanyahu needs to “be very careful” in his relations with U.S. President Donald Trump.
“Trump seems to me to be someone that will explode soon if he feels that Netanyahu is not attentive to some of his expectations,” Olmert said.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Foreign Policy: Over two dozen nations, including Israel-friendly governments like France and the United Kingdom, just signed a joint statement calling for an immediate end to the war in Gaza and condemning Israel for the “inhumane killing of civilians, including children.” But negotiations for a new truce and hostage deal continue to hit roadblocks, and Israel appears to be escalating the war. Are you at all hopeful that a cease-fire agreement will be reached soon?
Ehud Olmert: First of all, I will say—because there was a certain reaction in Israel to this statement—quite frankly, we don’t need these 26 countries to tell us. We told our government that the war should have stopped long ago. I said it already a year ago.
But toward the end of March this year, after the decision of the Israeli government to withdraw from the [cease-fire] agreement that may have led to a further agreement, thousands of Israelis, including the most senior former commanders of the Israeli army, the Israeli Air Force, Israeli intelligence, Mossad, the secret service—they all signed a petition to the government calling for an immediate end of the war, and also, of course, the return of all the hostages.
I’m not familiar with all the wording from the 26 countries that called for the immediate cessation of the military activities. But as I said, we in Israel think that this had to be done long ago and therefore there is no reason for us to complain about the statement made by these countries—in spite of the immediate, Pavlovian reaction from the Israeli government accusing all of them of antisemitism.
Now, the question is whether there is a chance for a cease-fire agreement and a return of all the hostages. I’m doubtful. The reason I’m doubtful is because I think there is an agreement that can solve it all. It’s a very unpleasant agreement for us, for the Israeli government, because the Israeli government wants to have all the hostages back and also to keep the option to immediately continue the military operations against Hamas. It is quite obvious that Hamas is not going to do this, and there is no need for further negotiations that can last forever in order to find that out.
Hamas are murderers, killers, and a most obnoxious, outrageous terrorist organization. But they are not dumb, and the only asset they hold is the hostages. So, the only possible way to release all the hostages is if there will be an Israeli commitment to stop the war, which, in order to make this agreement possible, will have to be guaranteed by America.
The question is very simple: Do we want it or not? And I think that the Israeli government doesn’t want it at the present time because of all kinds of calculations or considerations. Some say explicitly that the prime minister wants to carry on the war because he’s a captive of [Israeli National Security Minister Itamar] Ben-Gvir and [Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich and all the messianic groups that want to clear Gaza to perhaps temporarily assemble them [Palestinians] into a segregated humanitarian camp and then to deport them to Indonesia, Ethiopia, or Libya, in an attempt to clear the territory for the eventual settlement of Israelis.
If this is the position of the Israeli government, as is spelled out by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, then there is not a chance for an agreement. I don’t believe that Hamas will agree to something less than a complete cessation of hostilities, end of the war, and eventual Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza, in return for the release of the hostages.
FP: Are you effectively saying that, at this moment, the Israeli government is a bigger obstacle to a cease-fire deal than Hamas?
EO: It’s a matter of perception. Those who think that Hamas is not a partner for any kind of compromises under any circumstances will say that this is the responsibility of Hamas.
Those who are perhaps more realistic and somewhat more reasonable would understand that the question is: What are the priorities of Israel? If the priorities of Israel are to bring back all the hostages as soon as possible, then what we are doing is not compatible with this objective.
FP: Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid in recent months. Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on Palestinians pursuing food, including in particularly deadly incidents this past weekend. Many of the fatal incidents have been tied to a controversial new aid system backed by the United States and Israel. Why do you think this keeps happening?
EO: I don’t know. I wish it wouldn’t. I’m not familiar with all the events around these camps, where they provide humanitarian needs. I’m not certain that I know all that is going on there—what’s the contribution of some of the Hamas fighters trying to get hold of the supplies for their needs, at the expense of the Palestinians, for whom they don’t really care that much, and so on. I don’t know exactly.
But I’ll tell you what, in my mind, is the bottom line. Israel is in control there. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Israel to find the appropriate logistical and technical ways to provide the humanitarian needs of the population there in the most effective, comfortable manner—without any confrontations that can lead to the killing of innocent people. It’s incumbent upon us. It’s our responsibility. If it’s not done, regardless of what and who is responsible for a particular event that took place that triggered a shooting, it’s the responsibility of Israel if it is not done in an appropriate, responsible, and careful manner.
FP: You’ve said that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, and more recently you stated that the Israeli plan for a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza would amount to establishing a “concentration camp” for Palestinians. This is some of the harshest criticism I’ve heard from anyone of prominence in Israel. But you also recently said it would be “too far” to say that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. Is this still your position, and is this mainly because you don’t feel that intent has been proven or established, which obviously is crucial in terms of the legal definition of genocide?
EO: Yes, your interpretation is correct. Number one.
Number two is, let’s face it, the number of victims amongst the Palestinians is exorbitant, intolerable, and really heartbreaking. They are talking about 60,000, perhaps more. But when you talk about a population of two and a half million people and how easy it is for Israel—with the F-35s, F-15s, and F-16s, and all the long-range materiel that we have—to destroy and to kill three times more, then, obviously, this is not genocide. And it doesn’t fall within a legal definition of genocide.
What I said is that, yes, a war that is waged without any clear objective that can be achieved, when there is a growing number of Israelis that think that what the prime minister is doing is motivated by personal, individual political interests, and not anything that corresponds with the national or security interest of the state of Israel, and Israeli soldiers are killed every day, and hostages may be losing their lives every day, and innocent Palestinians are losing lives every day in great numbers—this is a crime. This is an intolerable crime that is [being] committed and [that is] under the responsibility of the government of Israel. Full stop.
FP: You’ve suggested that Netanyahu is a “captive,” or not really in control, and that his policies are being dictated by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. Both have made extreme statements about Palestinians that have contributed to sanctions from countries like the U.K. More recently, Slovenia accused both men of making “genocidal” statements, and in a first for the EU, banned the two from entering its borders. In a recent interview with Ezra Klein, you said Ben-Gvir and Smotrich want to “get rid of the Gazans.” If Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are really running the show, and you agree that they are set on the destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza, is this not evidence of genocidal intent?
EO: Look, a statement of intent is not an actual application of genocide. If it will be carried out, you will be able to say that this is genocide.
This is why I’m opposed so vehemently to the atrocious idea of having a humanitarian camp, because I’m afraid that establishing it may lead to precisely this, which I want to prevent. I don’t think there’s anyone that criticizes the Israeli government and the senior ministers in the Israeli government harsher than I do, but I have to be more or less accurate, because as long as this hasn’t been carried out, you really can’t say that there is proof of a genocide.
FP: So, for you to view the threshold of genocide as being crossed, you would need to see full-blown intent from the Israeli government to massacre the Palestinian population. Is that more or less what you’re saying?
EO: This is, I think, what one says when he accuses the other side of committing genocide. You don’t accuse someone of committing genocide only because he said, “I want all of them dead.” This is incitement, which has to be punished. This is intolerable. It reflects a set of values that is totally unacceptable to me and so on. But this is not a perpetration of genocide as long as it hasn’t been carried out.
FP: You’ve also stopped short of saying that ethnic cleansing is happening, which isn’t explicitly covered under international law but is generally understood to be forced removal of populations from territory. What do we call what’s happening in Gaza? Collective punishment?
EO: I’m not sure that I’m such a great expert in making very accurate and careful definitions of what is the meaning of what is done. What I said about the camp is that it can be easily interpreted as a concentration camp. It can be easily interpreted as ethnic cleansing. If you are moving hundreds of thousands of people from where they are supposed to live, where they used to live, and you destroy their houses, their buildings, and you move them into a segregated place, walled from every side, without any freedom of movement, what is it? Obviously, if this is done, it can be interpreted as a concentration camp. It hasn’t been done yet, and I’m warning against doing it, because I know that it will be interpreted in that way and Israel will be accused of doing exactly what I say. Before we reach that point, I feel it incumbent to warn of the possible ramifications.
FP: Netanyahu has taken a number of steps recently that could be seen as undermining U.S. foreign-policy goals. The Trump administration was reportedly particularly upset with Netanyahu over recent Israeli strikes in Syria. Trump was apparently “caught off guard” by these strikes as well as a recent Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza. Do you think Netanyahu cares about what the White House thinks? Is he at all worried about losing U.S. support?
EO: He better care, I would suggest to him, because Trump is not someone you want to have a direct confrontation with, from my perception. I don’t know Trump. I’ve never met with him. I never talked to him. I’ve had many contacts over the years with maybe five presidents before, but not with him. But my impression is that he can contain much rage, but not too much.
President Trump seems to me to be someone that will explode soon if he feels that Netanyahu is not attentive to some of his expectations, and I think it may be very upsetting and very, very unpleasant to Netanyahu.
To the extent to which Netanyahu has dealt with Trump so far, I think it’s been almost comprehensively beneficial to him. Trump sent the American bombers to bomb the nuclear sites in Iran, which was perceived in the international community, and also in Israel, as a great success for the policies and the maneuvers of Netanyahu, who successfully convinced Trump to do it.
And Trump made certain statements, which were received in Israel with a certain degree of surprise, criticizing the indictment of Netanyahu and his days in court, and saying it’s time to cancel this indictment for Netanyahu, an Israeli hero. I can understand the sensitivity that Trump has for indictments, but in Israel it was perceived in a very surprising way.
If Netanyahu would bring himself to a point where Trump will lose his patience with him, one thing needs to be recognized—there is not one single international leader that will then be prepared to protect Netanyahu or to help him, except maybe for [Prime Minister Viktor] Orban from Hungary. If this is good enough, OK. But, yeah, I think it’s questionable.
But there will be no one else that will have the patience and the desire to support Netanyahu. Trump has remained the last person on Earth who has shown patience to Netanyahu. If he feels that Netanyahu antagonizes, or whatever, what is important for him—oh boy, you should be very careful to watch what remains of Netanyahu.
FP: Iran is set to hold talks with France, Germany, and the U.K. later this week as it faces the threat of snapback sanctions if there’s no major progress on nuclear negotiations by August. Though Iran’s foreign minister acknowledged the damage to the program, he also said that Iran will not give up uranium enrichment—calling it a matter of national pride. But Tehran still appears open to reaching a deal on its program eventually. What would Israel need to see in an eventual agreement to take further strikes against Iran off the table? What would its red lines be?
EO: If there’s a nuclear agreement between America and Iran, I think it will be quite obvious that further attacks on the nuclear program will be set aside.
Therefore, the question is what needs to be part of this agreement to address Israel’s concerns. Iran shouldn’t have further enrichment activities. That’s very important. And the other thing is what kind of supervising authorities will the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] or the U.S. have to make sure they’re not bluffing. These are the two important elements in an agreement. Even if an agreement is not sufficient in terms of what Israel would have liked, Israel will have no option to attack it [Iran].
FP: Even if Iran’s nuclear program hasn’t been fully destroyed, it appears to have been set back significantly. And this is more or less the case across the board for Israel right now in terms of the state of its adversaries. Hezbollah and Hamas are greatly weakened. Former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is gone. The Houthis have been bruised and battered. Is it safe to say that, at the moment, Israel is the dominant military power in the Middle East?
EO: Absolutely.
Netanyahu knows, and we all know, that we are the most dominant military power in the Middle East. But admitting it, claiming it, or arguing it goes against the current presentation of Netanyahu that we still need to carry on the war against Hamas, because who knows what they may do to us in the future.
FP: A recent poll showed that just 21 percent of Israeli adults think Israel and a Palestinian state can coexist peacefully. You also recently said that there appears to be an “attitude of revenge” among many Israelis. In light of all that, do you think a two-state solution is dead? How does the region move forward from this period?
EO: At the end of the day, we can talk and talk about all kinds of ideas. There is only one solution, and this is two-state.
It’s true that presently, the polls in Israel reflect what has transpired, particularly since Oct. 7—this mood of rage, of revenge, of a desire to reach out for everyone that has been somehow even remotely involved, and kill them and destroy them.
I still look back to the advice that [President] Joe Biden gave us when he came to Israel 10 days after the beginning of the war. He said don’t let yourself be “consumed” by the rage that you feel and the desire for revenge. I think that sooner or later, Israelis will start to understand that there has to be some change of direction in order to see how we can, at the end of the day, create a new environment that will release us from the threats, dangers, and risks that we had to face over generations.
There are those like the Ben-Gvirs and Smotriches, and the other idiots and the thugs who are now comprising the Israeli cabinet—and excuse me for this language, but this is what they are—who say that we have to destroy all of them and to kill and so on and so forth. But I think that more and more Israelis will have to reach the inevitable conclusion that we must embark on serious negotiations, and the only way to negotiate, the only agenda for negotiations, is two states. There is nothing else.
FP: How concerned are you about the long-term consequences of this conflict for Israel’s relationship with the world? The war in Gaza has horrified the global community. Netanyahu can’t even land his plane in certain countries. Are you concerned about how this war will damage Israel’s relations with the international community, and are you worried about the potential for the conflict to breed a new generation of extremists? Has this war really made Israel safer?
EO: I’m very, very concerned already about the present damage—not the future—caused to the state of Israel across the world. It’s beyond everything that we were ever afraid of, it goes far further. There is this terrible opposition. Unfortunately, there is always, of course, an element of antisemitism. But largely this is the spontaneous, somewhat natural and inevitable reaction of people that just can’t tolerate what they see and the numbers of victims that they hear and the sight of babies and children fighting and being killed trying to get food. I’m very much concerned about it. It’s obvious that we are already paying a terrible price, and this price is going to be larger and more demanding and more painful.
But I am even more concerned about what it is doing to us within Israel. The polarization perpetrated by Netanyahu and his thugs. The confrontations between different aspects, different parts, different segments of our Israeli population, are very serious. The revered former president of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, said a while ago that he is afraid we are moving toward civil war in the state of Israel. And listening to some of the statements made by the messianic groups and their supporters, I’m very troubled by the polarization that is threatening to break the basic sense of solidarity that’s characterized the state of Israel, which was the source of its great strength over generations.