Yuval Steinitz

Steinitz was born on April 10, 1958, and grew up on Moshav Ramot HaShavim in central Israel.[1] He served as an infantry soldier in the Israel Defense Forces’ Golani Brigade and later as a reservist in the Alexandroni Brigade. He was wounded while fighting in Lebanon during the 1982 Operation Peace for the Galilee.[1]

He studied philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees with honors, and completed a doctorate in philosophy at Tel Aviv University.[1] In the early 1980s, while an undergraduate, he would debate Spinoza’s ideas during class. Professor Yirmiyahu Yovel reminded him that the class was concerned with interpreting Spinoza, not debating Spinoza himself.[8] The anecdote reflects Steinitz’s argumentative style as a student and the philosophical training that preceded his political career.[8]

Steinitz received the Alon Prize for Ph.D. students in 1993.[1] He became a senior lecturer in the philosophy department at the University of Haifa, and published four philosophy books between 1987 and 1998. A 2009 profile described his first book, Invitation to Philosophy, as having appeared in 40 editions and as Israel’s best-selling philosophy book.[9]

Before entering politics, he was active in the Israeli left and belonged to Peace Now.[9] In February 1983, a grenade thrown at a Peace Now rally killed activist Emil Grunzweig and wounded nine others, including Steinitz; in 2020, Steinitz said fragments from the grenade remained in his leg.[9][10] Accounts describe him as moving toward the political right after criticizing the Oslo Accords. One profile places his shift in 1994, followed by open support for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996.[9]

Steinitz joined Likud and ran on its list in the 1999 election, ranked twentieth. After the party won 19 seats, he entered the Knesset following Netanyahu’s resignation.[1][9] He was reelected on the Likud ticket in 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2013.[1] Alongside his parliamentary work, he served as president of the Association for the Public’s Right to Know from 1999 to 2004.[1]

His committee service covered foreign affairs and defense, constitutional law and justice, and science and technology. During his first Knesset term, he chaired the Subcommittee on Security Doctrine; he also served on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and other parliamentary committees.[9] From 2003 to 2006, he chaired the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.[8][9]

From 2003 to 2006, Steinitz co-chaired the Joint Congress-Knesset Security Committee with U.S. Senator John Kyl.[1] A U.S. Senate account in 2005 reported that Steinitz, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, and former cabinet member Natan Sharansky opposed withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The senator also reported that the three were concerned about Sinai’s militarization and weapons smuggling into Gaza; this was a contemporaneous account of their stated political views.[11]

Steinitz also proposed that Knesset members sign declarations of secrecy covering information disclosed in committee and subcommittee meetings, including restrictions on sharing material with journalists or disclosing subcommittee information without the chair’s approval.[2]

Steinitz’s political career spanned 23 years in the Knesset. In July 2022, he announced that he would not run in the next Likud primaries and was leaving political life.[6] He said he and his family deserved “some fresh air.”[6] In a farewell interview, he expressed concern about what he saw as increasingly violent and vulgar political discourse and said he regarded Netanyahu as the most qualified candidate to lead Israel.[12]

As chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee from 2003 to 2006, Steinitz sought a more active parliamentary role in scrutinizing the security establishment. An account based on his recollections describes clashes with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, and IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, and identifies opposition member Haim Ramon as an important partner in the committee’s work.[8]

The committee’s scrutiny included an inquiry into what an Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) review calls a “reverse intelligence failure”: inflated assessments of Iraq’s unconventional-weapons capabilities, rather than a failure to warn of an attack.[8] The review says that warnings about Iraqi capabilities contributed to actions including calling up reserves and purchasing vaccinations against biological weapons, which proved unnecessary. It describes the inquiry as unprecedented and says the security establishment initially opposed it and refused to cooperate; cooperation followed a public struggle.[8]

A later INSS account says Steinitz and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin established a public commission headed by Professor Amnon Rubinstein after a 2003 dispute between the committee and the security establishment. The commission was intended to examine parliamentary oversight of the security establishment.[2] The account likewise says the IDF, with the defense minister’s approval, refused to cooperate with Steinitz’s proposed inquiry into the intelligence system after the 2003 Iraq campaign, and that cooperation came only after a public struggle.[2]

The committee also considered whether Syria was developing a secret nuclear project. The INSS review says it sent Sharon a warning letter stating that “there is a high probability that Syria has a military nuclear project,” despite skepticism among senior intelligence officials.[8] The review reports that the existence of the Deir ez-Zor reactor was confirmed in early 2007 and that the Israeli Air Force attacked and destroyed it in September that year. Steinitz credited himself and the intelligence subcommittee with raising the initial warning.[8]

The review also discusses Libya, where it says Israeli intelligence had not identified an advanced nuclear project and broader weapons-of-mass-destruction plans. Those plans were discovered by foreign intelligence services and dismantled through an agreement with the United States and Britain in 2003.[8] The review’s treatment of Iraq, Libya, and Syria forms part of its account of intelligence oversight under Steinitz’s chairmanship.

The INSS author cautions against reducing the Syria episode to a simple story in which the committee was right and the intelligence community was wrong. Steinitz’s claims about the inquiry and its role are presented in a retrospective review of his account, and the review discusses disputes over how the intelligence assessments and political responsibility should be interpreted.[8] In explaining the case for considering the Syrian possibility, Steinitz argued that “in serious intelligence work it is permitted and even necessary to raise hypotheses – just as in the natural sciences.”[8]

Steinitz later described another disagreement over security policy through the image of “Don Quixote, about to storm the windmills of the Air Force completely alone.” The INSS review attributes the remark to his account of opposing the Air Force’s plan to acquire a second fleet of F-35 aircraft.[8]

Netanyahu appointed Steinitz minister of finance in March 2009, and he remained in the post until March 2013.[1] A U.S. Congressional Research Service report listed him as finance minister and a Likud member in the 2009 government.[3] In 2013, after the January election and formation of the 33rd government in March, he became minister of strategic and intelligence affairs, with responsibility for international relations; Yair Lapid replaced him as finance minister.[1][13] The Library of Congress’s listing of that government names Steinitz as minister of intelligence, minister of strategic affairs, and minister of international relations.[13]

In May 2015, Steinitz became minister of national infrastructure, energy, and water resources.[14][15] A U.S. Congressional Research Service account that year listed him as a Likud minister responsible for infrastructure, energy, and water, and counted five previous Knesset terms.[14] Accounts of the 34th government describe his portfolio differently: one biographical page lists infrastructure and the Atomic Energy Commission, while a separate government listing calls him minister of Energy and Water.[1][16] The sources thus use different descriptions of his responsibilities in that government.

His ministerial service covered finance, strategic affairs, intelligence, international relations, infrastructure, and energy.[1][13] A 2016 Tel Aviv University event listing identified him as minister of infrastructure, energy, and water and scheduled him to speak about “The Global Energy Challenge.”[17] He also served in the security cabinet and, according to a 2023 report, was responsible for the Atomic Energy Committee for eight years.[7]

In January 2023, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced Steinitz’s appointment as chairman of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, subject to the government companies appointment process. Subsequent reporting identified him as Rafael’s chairman.[7]

Steinitz took office as finance minister amid economic contraction and concern about recession and unemployment. In a retrospective interview, he recalled that Netanyahu had told him before the 2009 election he would receive one of three senior portfolios—foreign affairs, defense, or finance. Steinitz said he had mainly focused on security and was not especially interested in economics, but expected he might be assigned finance; he recalled two quarters of negative growth and fears of a severe recession.[4]

In April 2009, Netanyahu and Steinitz announced measures intended to support the economy and combat unemployment. The package included doubling government guarantees for bank loans, aid for high-tech companies and exporters, and personal-income and corporate tax cuts to be phased in through 2016. It also raised taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, and social security. The Congressional Research Service noted that the package did not include bank bailouts or a conventional economic stimulus.[3]

The cabinet approved a two-year budget for 2009–2010 on May 13, 2009, with four Shas ministers dissenting; the Knesset approved it on June 23.[3] The budget set deficit targets of 6% of GDP for 2009 and 5.5% for 2010. Steinitz predicted that deficits would be lower than initially projected because GDP growth was higher than anticipated; the report recorded growth of 1.1% in the second quarter of 2009 and 3% in the third quarter.[3] A biography describes this as the first Israeli finance minister’s two-year budget, replacing the customary one-year budget.[1]

Steinitz said a multi-year budget could offer a longer-term plan and greater stability to markets. In his account, he also limited spending growth to 1.05%, lowered corporate taxes, and supported legislation to encourage investment in high technology and Israel’s periphery.[4] The Jerusalem Post interview reports his account that Israel recorded 5.5% growth the year after he took office, which he described as the highest in the West, and that Israel joined the OECD during his tenure.[4] A 2025 book blurb credited him with achievements including the two-year budget and Israel’s acceptance into the OECD, but the INSS review presents these as claims made by the blurb rather than independently established findings.[8]

His tenure coincided with the 2011 social protests and rising prices. Accounts note that he faced pressure to respond to recommendations of the Trajtenberg Committee.[6] In a January 2013 speech, Steinitz acknowledged that poverty and wide social gaps warranted criticism and that the housing shortage was a just cause of the protests. He also said that most structural reforms begun during his term had not succeeded, citing unfinished work involving seaports, the Israel Electric Corporation, the Committee on Concentration in the Economy, and building reform.[18]

Other measures associated with his term included an amendment to the Encouragement of Capital Investments Law and the entry into force of a credit-concentration law that he initiated.[6] In announcing his departure from politics, Steinitz listed the two-year budget and OECD entry among his achievements; these were his own assessments of his record.[6]

Steinitz’s work on energy policy began while he was finance minister. He supported recommendations of the Sheshinski Committee to increase the state’s share of revenues from oil and gas resources. A 2011 report described the resulting law, passed by the Knesset in March by 78 votes to two: royalties remained at 12.5%, while a profits levy applied after investors reached specified returns. The levy could rise to 50% after a 230% return, bringing the maximum state take to 62.5% when combined with royalties. The law also required a fund for collected revenues, intended for social and economic purposes.[19]

The proposals were disputed by gas and oil exploration companies. In January 2011, Steinitz rejected requests to exempt the Tamar field, saying he would not yield to pressure. He argued that revenues from natural resources should benefit the public and supported a sovereign fund for receipts, with investment in areas such as infrastructure, education, and defense. He described the campaign against the committee as partly legitimate and partly as having crossed red lines.[20] In a later interview, he said he had supported raising the state’s share of energy-resource revenues from about 20% to about 60%, and described pressure from companies and, on behalf of Noble Energy, from the White House.[4]

When Steinitz entered the Energy Ministry in 2015, the Leviathan field, discovered in 2010, and the Karish-Tanin reservoir, discovered in 2011, had not yet been developed, according to his account. He said he announced that Leviathan and Karish-Tanin would be developed during his tenure despite advice to avoid the politically contentious issue. Leviathan began production in 2019.[4] His stated policy sought to break up the control of Delek and Noble Energy after the companies found three reservoirs, require them to sell two, cap gas prices, and reserve 50% of gas for domestic strategic use.[4]

The cabinet approved a natural-gas framework in August 2015. The vote was not unanimous: Environmental Protection Minister Avi Gabai opposed the plan without changes on energy security, while several ministers did not participate because of declared conflicts of interest. Steinitz described the framework as an improvement, pointing to expected changes in prices, competition, energy security, state revenue, and the possibility of an economic connection along a regional peace axis.[5] The plan was politically contested, and the High Court of Justice struck down the gas agreement.[21]

After the court ruling, the government and the Leviathan partners negotiated a replacement for a regulatory-stability clause. In May 2016, the companies accepted a partial clause that did not commit the government automatically to oppose future Knesset legislation, leaving later governments room to change policy. Steinitz said the compromise followed the Supreme Court’s principles and was intended to encourage investment; he hoped development of Leviathan would proceed on schedule.[21]

Steinitz presented natural-gas production and exports as economically and geopolitically significant. In a 2020 interview, he said discoveries made in 2009, 2010, and 2011 could strengthen Israel economically, improve its geopolitical position, and help reduce pollution. He described Israel as exporting gas to Egypt and Jordan, negotiating with the Palestinian Authority, and cooperating on gas with Egypt, Cyprus, and Jordan.[22] On January 15, 2020, he and Egypt’s energy minister, Tarek el-Molla, announced that gas had begun flowing from Israel to Egypt, a milestone in relations between the two countries.[23]

In the same 2020 interview, Steinitz said Israel had agreements with Greece, Italy, and Cyprus concerning a pipeline from the Middle East to Europe. He argued that even a 20% share of the European gas market could have geopolitical significance for Israel.[22] In December 2018, Israel, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy, with EU backing, agreed to construct a proposed underwater pipeline of more than 1,300 miles to carry Israeli gas toward Europe. Steinitz called the project economically and politically important and described it as Israel’s first major infrastructure project with the EU. The United States withdrew its endorsement in 2022, citing economic-feasibility and environmental concerns and opposition from Turkey.[24]

Steinitz also forecast in 2020 that Israel would stop using coal and oil for energy within four years and reduce air pollution by 95%.[22] In a separate interview, he credited natural gas replacing other fuels with a 75% reduction in power-plant air pollution and said the Israeli market had saved NIS 65 billion in 2021 through natural-gas income. These percentages and financial figures are claims attributed to him in the interviews, rather than independent measurements established there.[4]

A Jewish Virtual Library account reported that Steinitz said Israel earned $800 million from natural-gas exports in the year before February 2017. The same account reported that government revenue from oil and gas was NIS 411 million in the first half of 2016, 12.8% higher than in the preceding period.[24] These figures form part of the reported economic case for the sector during his ministerial service.

In June 2018, Steinitz and U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry signed an agreement establishing a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in Energy, Engineering and Water Technology. The U.S. Congress had appropriated $4 million, to be matched by Israel’s government and private-sector partners for a targeted initial total of $16 million. The center was intended to advance joint research and speed the development and deployment of technologies in fossil energy, energy cybersecurity, energy-water systems, and energy storage.[25]

After becoming minister of strategic and intelligence affairs in 2013, Steinitz served as Israel’s liaison to world powers negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran after the interim deal that year. His role continued until the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was reached in 2015.[4] He became a prominent critic of the agreement, arguing that it left Iran with nuclear infrastructure and could allow it to become a nuclear-threshold state. These were Steinitz’s assessments of the deal.[4]

In January 2013, while still finance minister, Steinitz visited Washington to urge senior U.S. officials to take a tougher line on Iran’s nuclear activities. Before planned meetings with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other officials, he called for a “very clear ultimatum, very clear deadline” backed by a “very credible” military threat. He also said he wanted to discuss what Israel viewed as loopholes in sanctions and Iranian efforts to evade legal restrictions.[26]

At a strategic-studies conference in October 2013, Steinitz attributed substantial economic damage to international sanctions on Iran. He put the damage at about $100 billion over 18–24 months and cited inflation of 40%, unemployment of 25–30%, a 180% devaluation of the rial, and negative economic growth of 5.4%. He predicted that the Iranian economy would collapse within another year and a half; the figures and forecast were reported as his statements, not independently validated in the account.[26]

In a 2022 interview, Steinitz recounted a proposal he said he made to a Russian representative during the 2013 Syrian chemical-weapons crisis. In his account, Russia would use its influence with Bashar al-Assad to secure the surrender and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in exchange for a U.S. commitment not to strike. Steinitz said the representative recorded the proposal, that he informed Netanyahu, and that Netanyahu contacted President Barack Obama, who supported the plan. This is Steinitz’s retrospective account of his role in the initiative.[4]

Steinitz’s political evolution—from Peace Now to Likud—was accompanied by opposition to the Oslo Peace Accords, as described in biographical accounts.[1][9] His position on the 2005 Gaza withdrawal was also reported in a contemporaneous U.S. Senate account: the senator said Steinitz, Reuven Rivlin, and Natan Sharansky opposed the withdrawal and raised concerns about Sinai’s militarization and weapons smuggling into Gaza.[11] These sources document his political positions but do not provide a comprehensive account of the arguments on all sides of the policies.

In public remarks about energy, Steinitz emphasized regional cooperation as well as domestic supply and state revenue. He described gas exports to Egypt and Jordan, negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and cooperation with Egypt, Cyprus, and Jordan as parts of Israel’s emerging energy relationships.[22] The start of gas flows to Egypt, announced by Steinitz and Tarek el-Molla in January 2020, was reported as a milestone in bilateral relations.[23]

Steinitz also served as president of the Association for the Public’s Right to Know from 1999 through 2004.[1] Economist Omer Moav headed his advisory board from 2009 to 2010.[27] That account identifies Steinitz as finance minister and describes the advisory role, though it does not provide a detailed assessment of the board’s work.

Steinitz’s public record brought together academic work in philosophy, parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence and defense institutions, economic policymaking, and energy policy. His chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee placed him at the center of efforts to investigate intelligence assessments and to establish a public commission on parliamentary oversight.[2][8] Accounts of the intelligence inquiries emphasize both the committee’s confrontations with the security establishment and the difficulty of assigning credit or responsibility for intelligence judgments.[8]

As finance minister, Steinitz promoted a two-year budget and measures intended to support employment and business activity during the 2009 downturn.[1][3] His tenure also included the Sheshinski legislation, which changed the taxation of oil and gas profits and established a fund for receipts.[19] The policies became contentious in debates over how to divide benefits between the state and private developers.[20]

His later energy work included advocacy for gas-field development and a regulatory framework for the sector.[4][5] It also included regional gas exports and cooperation with the United States on energy and water technology.[23][25] Steinitz credited gas policy with benefits including lower power-plant pollution and substantial savings, while the 2020 interview included a forecast of a 95% reduction in air pollution; those evaluations and projections are presented in the cited accounts as his claims.[4][22]

After announcing his departure from politics in 2022, Steinitz took up the chairmanship of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in 2023.[6][7] His career thus continued from elected office and cabinet service into leadership of a state-owned defense company.

Several prominent episodes in Steinitz’s career involve contested policy choices or retrospective claims. The Iraq and Libya intelligence accounts and the committee’s warning about Syria are drawn from an INSS review of his memoir and concern disputed assessments of intelligence performance and political responsibility. The review cautions against presenting the Syrian episode simply as proof that the committee was right and the intelligence community wrong.[8]

Energy policy also generated disputes. The Sheshinski recommendations changed the division of proceeds between the state and private developers, while the 2015 gas framework faced opposition.[19][5] The High Court later struck down the agreement’s stability arrangement, leading to a revised clause.[21] The proposed East Med pipeline, which Steinitz presented as strategically important, later lost U.S. endorsement amid concerns about feasibility and environmental effects and opposition from Turkey.[24]

Other claims in the record are explicitly attributed to Steinitz or to sources describing his perspective. These include his assessments of the Iran nuclear agreement, his forecast of Iran’s economic collapse, and his account of a role in the 2013 Syrian chemical-weapons initiative.[4][26] Likewise, reported economic outcomes and pollution reductions associated with energy policy are not independently established in the cited interview passages.[4][22] The varying descriptions of his 34th-government portfolio reflect different wording in two biographical listings rather than a dispute addressed in detail by the available accounts.[1][16]