Insights into the Political Aspirations of Netanyahu and Orbán

In this article, I explore the parallels between two highly polarizing political figures: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Although their political landscapes differ, both leaders have advanced nationalist agendas that resonate strongly with populist currents in their respective countries. Their leadership is generally marked by a shared emphasis on national identity, a deep mistrust of international institutions, and the portrayal of both internal and external adversaries as existential threats. This article examines their political philosophies, strategies, and public rhetoric, while reflecting on broader global trends of populism and nationalism. By analyzing their domestic policies and foreign relations, I aim to uncover shared patterns in their governance, recognizing the unique contexts shaping Israel and Hungary.

Netanyahu’s political rise is rooted in Israeli politics, especially its security concerns. His leadership consistently portrays Israel as a nation under existential threat, drawing on a narrative of ongoing conflict with neighboring states and non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah. Netanyahu frequently emphasizes the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional terrorism, presenting himself as the only leader capable of ensuring Israel’s security[1].

Orbán’s rise in Hungary has centered on nationalist and anti-immigration rhetoric. He frames Hungary as a bastion of Christian Europe, besieged by mass immigration and liberal internationalism, which he views as threats to Hungary’s sovereignty and cultural identity. Orbán frequently claims that Hungary faces an existential threat from immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, and from the elites in Brussels, whom he accuses of undermining Hungary’s sovereignty.

The rhetorical strategies of Netanyahu and Orbán are notably similar. Both leaders emphasize external threats to rally domestic support and legitimize their rule. Netanyahu’s portrayal of Israel as a nation in constant danger justifies his strong security policies. Similarly, Orbán builds his political success on the claim that Hungary’s survival depends on resisting immigration and defending national identity against foreign influence.

Both leaders also leverage domestic adversaries in their political rhetoric. Netanyahu often targets the Israeli judiciary, media, and political opponents, accusing them of undermining his leadership and the state of Israel. Orbán depicts Hungary’s opposition parties, civil society organizations, and even the European Union as foreign agents. Hungarian-born financier George Soros is often presented as a symbol of globalist interference. In both cases, internal enemies are framed as threats to national unity, justifying increasingly authoritarian measures.

Media manipulation is another shared tactic. Netanyahu, known for his media savvy, has built a direct connection with the Israeli public through social media, bypassing traditional outlets he accuses of bias. Orbán has consolidated Hungary’s media landscape, bringing much of it under the control of allies. Both leaders use these platforms to amplify their narratives and discredit critics.

A key element of Netanyahu’s and Orbán’s political strategies is their stance toward international institutions. Netanyahu takes a skeptical, often hostile, view of bodies like the United Nations, which he accuses of bias against Israel (an accusation I share). His foreign policy emphasizes bilateral relations with right-wing or nationalist governments, marginalizing multilateral diplomacy. Orbán, within the European Union, adopts a similarly confrontational stance toward EU institutions, particularly regarding rule of law and migration. He frames Hungary as a defender of national sovereignty against an overreaching European bureaucracy.

Both leaders have also cultivated relationships with nationalist figures abroad, further bolstering their reputations as defenders of sovereignty. Netanyahu has built ties with populist leaders, including Orbán, and with former U.S. President Donald Trump. Orbán aligns with European populist movements, reinforcing his nationalist, anti-immigrant, and Eurosceptic stance.

However, while their strategies overlap, their operational contexts are fundamentally different. Netanyahu’s leadership is deeply rooted in the complex geopolitical realities of the Middle East, where Israel faces genuine security threats. In contrast, Orbán’s Hungary operates in a relatively stable Europe, where the threats he cites—mass immigration and liberal globalism—are more ideological than existential. These contextual differences shape how each leader’s policies are perceived domestically and internationally.

In terms of governance, both Netanyahu and Orbán have faced accusations of eroding democratic norms. Netanyahu’s attempts at judicial reform, efforts to weaken Israel’s courts, and longstanding corruption charges have raised concerns about Israeli democracy [2]. Orbán has systematically dismantled Hungary’s democratic institutions, consolidating power to the point that some scholars describe Hungary as a “soft dictatorship” or hybrid regime [3]. Despite these concerns, both leaders retain significant support, as their bases view their strong-arm tactics as necessary for national protection.

In summary, while Netanyahu and Orbán operate in different contexts, their political aspirations share notable similarities. Both leaders use nationalist rhetoric and emphasize perceived threats to justify authoritarian policies. Their alignment with broader trends in populism and nationalism reflects the challenges these leaders pose to liberal democratic norms.

[1] Despite Netanyahu’s persistent rhetoric and calls for international action, the reality is that Iran continues to advance its nuclear weapons development. His warnings about the existential threat posed by Iran have not led to significant changes in the trajectory of Iran’s nuclear program, which remains a matter of ongoing concern for Israel and the international community.

[2] See for example:  Ginsburg T. The Long Hand of Anti-Corruption: Israeli Judicial Reform in Comparative Perspective. Israel Law Review. 2023;56(3):385-396. doi:10.1017/S0021223723000158

[3] See for example: András Bozóki & Dániel Hegedűs (2018) An externally constrained hybrid regime: Hungary in the European Union, Democratization, 25:7, 1173-1189, DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664