After five years of claiming his innocence, numerous courtroom appearances, and declaring that the charges against him were a "witch hunt," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a surprising shift: he is asking for a pardon.
This request, sent to President Isaac Herzog, marks a critical moment in modern Israeli political history. It isn't just about one man's legal issues; it raises questions about whether Israel's democratic institutions can handle a leader willing to blur the lines between personal survival and national interest.
Netanyahu’s message is straightforward: while he would prefer to see his trial finish, “national interest demanded otherwise.” His critics interpret this differently, viewing it as a politically convenient escape route for a prime minister facing serious legal troubles, dressed up as patriotism.
The Charges He Won't Admit To
Netanyahu became the first sitting Israeli prime minister to go on trial in 2020, facing accusations of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust across three different cases. The allegations illustrate a serious picture of corruption at the highest levels of the Israeli government:
Case 1: Prosecutors claim Netanyahu received gifts, mostly cigars and bottles of champagne, from powerful businessmen in return for political favors. This is a classic example of corruption: luxury items in exchange for regulatory assistance.
Case 2: He is accused of offering to help an Israeli newspaper with circulation in return for favorable coverage, effectively using his power to sway media reporting.
Case 3: Prosecutors assert he promoted regulatory decisions that benefited the major shareholder of an Israeli telecom company in exchange for positive coverage from a news site. Once again, the alleged pattern shows a misuse of government power for personal gain.
Netanyahu has pleaded not guilty to all these charges, repeatedly calling the trial politically motivated. Now, instead of allowing the legal system to finish, he is seeking a way out.
The Trump Factor
The timing of Netanyahu's request is no accident. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump publicly called on Herzog to “fully pardon” Netanyahu. This is an unusual intervention by a foreign leader in another country's legal matters.
At that time, Herzog made it clear that anyone seeking a pardon must follow formal procedures. Netanyahu has now done just that, and Herzog's office has stated that the president will consult with justice officials before considering “this extraordinary request and its implications.”
The wording is significant. Herzog's office isn't treating this as a normal request; they recognize that granting a pardon to a sitting prime minister facing serious corruption charges could greatly change Israeli politics and possibly weaken the country’s democratic structures.
Trump's involvement adds another layer of complexity. His push for Netanyahu's pardon raises concerns about whether American foreign policy is being influenced by Trump's personal connections with foreign leaders. It also shows how Netanyahu has gained international political support that he hopes can protect him from legal consequences at home.
A Defiant Defense
In a video message released on Sunday, Netanyahu adopted his typical defiant stance. He claimed the cases against him were "collapsing" but argued that continuing the trial was "tearing Israel apart from within."
"I am certain, as are many others in the nation, that an immediate end to the trial would greatly help lower the flames and promote broad reconciliation, something our country desperately needs," Netanyahu said.
This is a masterful approach to political communication: frame your legal issues as a national crisis, and then present your exoneration as the solution. The message is clear—Netanyahu suggests that prosecuting corruption is more harmful to Israel than the corruption itself.
He complained about being required to testify three times a week, describing it as “an impossible demand.” Many see this as hollow. Testifying in your own defense is a usual part of criminal trials. Calling it impossible or unreasonable implies that Netanyahu believes he should be above the legal process that affects ordinary citizens.
Netanyahu argued that a pardon would help Israel "fend off threats and seize opportunities" by fostering "national unity." This line of reasoning mixes his personal interests with those of the nation—precisely what his opponents accuse him of throughout his career.
The Opposition Responds
Political opponents quickly responded with criticism. Opposition leader Yair Lapid drew a firm line: there can be no pardon without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse, and Netanyahu's immediate exit from political life.
This position aligns with the traditional view of how pardons should function in democracies. You seek forgiveness for wrongdoing, not justification while still maintaining your innocence. A pardon without an admission of guilt is simply a grant of immunity for political reasons.
Yair Golan, a left-wing politician and former deputy commander of Israeli forces, stated bluntly: "Only the guilty seek pardon."
The criticism underscores a fundamental issue with Netanyahu’s request. He wants the legal proceedings to stop while refusing to admit any wrongdoing. He desires exoneration without trial and vindication without a verdict. It’s an attempt to escape legal jeopardy while holding onto his narrative of victimization.
The Legal Framework
According to Israel's Basic Law, the president has the power to pardon criminals and reduce or change their sentence. However, the High Court of Justice has previously ruled that the president can grant a pardon before a conviction if it serves the public interest or if there are exceptional personal circumstances.
This legal framework puts Herzog in a tough position. Does Netanyahu's situation qualify for a pre-conviction pardon? Is it genuinely in the public interest to end this trial, or would it imply that influential political figures are above the law?
Herzog must balance conflicting factors. On one side, Netanyahu's supporters, especially from his right-wing Likud party, have consistently backed a pardon. They argue that the prime minister is being unfairly targeted and that Israel needs his leadership without legal distractions.
On the other side, granting the pardon could send a troubling signal about Israeli democracy. It would suggest that if you're powerful enough and have the right international allies, you can evade accountability for alleged corruption. For many Israelis, especially those on the left, it would represent further erosion of the country’s democratic norms and legal institutions.
Democracy Under Pressure
Netanyahu's pardon request arrives at a time when Israeli democracy is already under considerable strain. Public concerns about the government's plans for judicial reform drew hundreds of thousands into protests for months before the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, led to the current Gaza war.
These protests expressed significant anxiety about Netanyahu's administration weakening judicial independence and consolidating power. A presidential pardon that halts corruption proceedings against the prime minister would likely rekindle these fears and reinforce the belief that Israel’s legal system is being subordinated to political interests.
For many Israelis, the country’s strong legal system and commitment to the rule of law have been key to its identity as the only robust democracy in the Middle East. Each compromise of these principles—whether through judicial reform or political pardons—chips away at that foundation.
The ICC Complication
Netanyahu's legal troubles are not confined to domestic issues. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant last year for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant because of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Netanyahu has condemned the ICC warrant as "antisemitic," refusing to accept the court's authority. However, the existence of international legal actions adds urgency to his domestic situation. A prime minister facing both domestic corruption charges and international war crime allegations is in an unprecedented legal predicament.
Some analysts suggest this dual legal threat may be influencing Netanyahu's request for a pardon. If he can resolve his domestic legal issues, he could focus his political and legal resources on the ICC charges. A pardon would remove one significant source of vulnerability, even if it does not affect the international warrant.
What Happens Next
Herzog's office has not provided a timeline for when the president might make a decision. The deliberation process will likely involve consultations with legal experts, consideration of public opinion, and assessment of possible political outcomes.
The president faces a difficult situation. If he grants the pardon, he will be accused of undermining Israeli democracy and the rule of law. If he denies it, he will face pressure from Netanyahu's supporters and possibly from the Trump administration.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, continues to lead Israel during a time of war and regional instability. His supporters argue this is exactly why he must be freed from legal distractions. His critics argue that a leader facing serious corruption charges cannot effectively serve the public interest because his personal stakes will cloud his judgment.
The Broader Implications
Beyond Netanyahu’s personal situation, this pardon request raises essential questions about governance in democracies. Can leaders facing criminal charges effectively govern? Should the judicial process be paused during national crises, or is that when the rule of law is most crucial? What does it mean when powerful people can use political pressure—including from foreign leaders—to avoid legal accountability?
These questions extend beyond Israel. Democracies around the world are wrestling with how to deal with leaders who face legal challenges while still holding political power. The outcome of Netanyahu’s case will be closely monitored well beyond Israel’s borders.
For now, Herzog holds the key. His decision will shape Israeli politics for years and may redefine the relationship between political authority and legal accountability in Israel’s democracy.
Netanyahu presents his pardon request as an act of national service—prioritizing the country over personal redemption. His critics view it quite differently: as a desperate attempt by a leader in legal trouble to escape accountability while claiming that his personal survival aligns with the national interest.
The president now must decide which view is correct. Israel's democratic future may hinge on making the right choice.
The corruption trial against Netanyahu has been ongoing since 2020. No date has been set for a verdict, and it remains unclear when President Herzog will respond to the pardon request.