Brandeis Stories

By Julian Cardillo ’14
July 2, 2025

Professor Yehudah Mirsky

Yehudah Mirsky is a professor in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies; a scholar of Israeli politics and society and a former U.S. State Department official. He is also a longtime observer of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From his home in Jerusalem, where he is currently based, Mirsky discussed Netanyahu’s strategic worldview, its implications for future dealings with the world and his relationship with President Donald Trump.

You’ve described Netanyahu as a genius of political survival. How does that shape his decisions today?

Netanyahu’s fundamental stance toward the world is mistrust. He’s had idealistic chapters in his life, but his prevailing view is that human nature is dark and the world cannot fundamentally improve — especially as it applies to Jews. In a way, that’s liberating for him because it enables him to maneuver freely and, at times, ruthlessly. He can make and spurn allies right and left, secular and religious, as long as he remains at the wheel.

He is as deeply suspicious of grand moves as he is about human nature. He looks at predecessors who took big risks — Prime Minister Menachem Begin invading Lebanon in 1982 (unaware that then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon meant to use the invasion to reshape Lebanon’s internal politics); Prime Minister Ehud Barak offering Yasir Arafat a final peace deal at Camp David in 2000; then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally disengaging from Gaza in 2005 — and sees that none ended well.

His strategy has always been a mix of long-term caution and tactical audacity, to appear and sound eloquently bellicose but keep military action as limited as possible. He’s brilliant, well-read, supremely confident in his abilities and believes fervently in his prowess and stature. That confidence is no small part of what has kept him in power so long.

How does this mindset play into his approach toward Gaza and Iran today?

With Gaza, his approach was to leave Hamas in control — “the devil you know” — avoiding confrontation that would cost Israeli and Palestinian lives (indeed, generating civilian casualties is essential to Hamas’ warfighting strategy and international standing) and generate pressure to replace them with the Palestinian Authority, as part of the Palestinian drive towards statehood. But with Iran, it’s different. For him, and in truth, for nearly all Israelis across the political spectrum, a nuclear-armed Iran, capable of acting on its longstanding, avowed objective of eradicating Israel is a uniquely existential threat. And he genuinely believes he is the only one capable of handling it. His identity as a leader is wrapped up in seeing himself as a Churchillian figure confronting an existential enemy.

However, I don’t think, as some Western commentators do, that his recent military decisions on Iran were purely political, unlike in Gaza, where he is clearly prolonging the war for political reasons. Intelligence convinced serious people that Iran was getting very close to a working nuclear weapon. Of course, he’s aware of the political benefits of appearing strong, but stopping Iran has always been his principle — and it’s one position that the vast majority of Israelis, including those who, like me, bitterly dislike him, agree with.

Netanyahu’s coalition is notoriously fragile. How does that affect his decision-making?

Its fragility is, paradoxically, what has held it together so long, as they have nowhere else to go. His coalition partners — the ultra-Orthodox parties, as well as his fire-breathing nationalist Internal Security and Finance Ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — have extreme, often contradictory demands. They all are outwardly hostile toward each other, but they know if elections were held tomorrow, they’re out. That’s what keeps them together.

Remember also that Israel has a history of sending former prime ministers and presidents to prison for corruption, that Netanyahu is currently facing ongoing corruption prosecutions, and he needs to remain politically viable to end them.

How would you describe Netanyahu’s relationship with Donald Trump?

It’s complicated. Trump values personal loyalty above all else. Netanyahu is like that too. Trump has publicly admonished Netanyahu — for instance, claiming Netanyahu congratulated Biden first after the 2020 election (that’s untrue, though he was the first to call Biden out of the new autocrats like Hungary’s Viktor Orban and India’s Narendra Modi). For Trump, Israel is a vassal state, and better not get in the way of his political and financial ambitions. He expects obedience. When Netanyahu acts independently, Trump sees that as betrayal.

And yet, it’s still a marriage of convenience. Many Israelis, including some who used to be liberal, feel safer with Trump than with Biden. They see him as a strongman who keeps Israel secure. But within the MAGA world and in the Republican Party more generally, Israel’s stock is falling, especially among younger voters (as it is among the Democratic party too). Even pro-Israel evangelicals are increasingly viewed as idealistic or out of touch. That shift could affect Netanyahu’s standing as Trump continues his second term in office. The future is wide open.