Inside Benjamin Netanyahu’s pardon gamble: What it means for Israel’s courts, politics and war-time leadership

Netanyahu’s high-stakes presidential pardon gamble explained

Benjamin Netanyahu has submitted a highly controversial request for a presidential pardon while his corruption trial is still underway, a move without modern precedent in Israel’s legal history. The appeal places Isaac Herzog in an extraordinary constitutional position, as Israel grapples simultaneously with political polarisation, war and institutional strain.

The request, made before any verdict has been reached, has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, opposition politicians and democracy watchdogs, who warn that it risks undermining the rule of law.

How the pardon request was made

Netanyahu’s legal team formally submitted the clemency petition to the president on Sunday, arguing that halting the trial now would help reduce national tensions and serve Israel’s broader interests. The move was swiftly reinforced by a carefully choreographed political message.

In a short video released by the Likud party, Netanyahu said, “My lawyers sent a request for pardon to the president of the country today. I expect that anyone who wishes for the good of the country support this step.”

Notably, the prime minister made no admission of guilt and did not concede any element of the charges against him. Instead, he focused on what he described as the practical impossibility of simultaneously running the country and attending court several times a week during a period of acute security threats.

He insisted that he still expected to be cleared if the case continued, but stressed that the demands placed on him were excessive. The courtroom schedule, he argued, amounted to “an impossible demand that is not made of any other citizen.”

The corruption charges were first announced by Israel’s Justice Ministry in 2019, with the trial beginning the following year. Since then, proceedings have been repeatedly delayed due to elections, political deadlock, war and postponement requests from the defence.

Crucially, Israeli presidents have traditionally considered pardons only after conviction and the exhaustion of appeals, making Netanyahu’s pre-verdict request particularly contentious.

The corruption cases explained

At the centre of the legal battle are three interconnected corruption cases known as Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000. Collectively, they allege bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Prosecutors argue that Netanyahu:

Accepted expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen and political benefactors

Used his office to advance regulatory interests linked to a major telecommunications company

Attempted to secure favourable media coverage through secret negotiations with a powerful newspaper publisher

The indictments followed years of police investigations and testimony from figures across Israel’s political, business and media elite. Prosecutors maintain the cases represent one of the most serious abuses of public office in the country’s history.

Netanyahu, however, has rejected all wrongdoing and repeatedly framed the trial as a politically driven effort to remove him from power, describing it as a campaign orchestrated by entrenched elites.

Security crises and political defence

In justifying the timing of the pardon request, Netanyahu has leaned heavily on Israel’s current security challenges — including confrontations with Hamas, tensions with Hezbollah and the recent conflict involving Iran.

He has argued that ending the legal saga swiftly would ease domestic divisions and foster what he described as a necessary atmosphere of “broad reconciliation”. Supporters within his government echo that claim, arguing that the prime minister’s legal distractions weaken Israel’s capacity to respond decisively to external threats.

The appeal also received high-profile backing from Donald Trump, who earlier this month wrote to Herzog urging him to grant clemency. Trump described the prosecution as “a political, unjustified prosecution” and had previously raised the issue publicly in the Israeli Knesset.

Netanyahu cited that intervention, saying it reflected the need to prioritise strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States.

Senior coalition figures quickly followed suit. Defence Minister Israel Katz called for the charges to be dropped, while far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich publicly backed the prime minister.

Legal and political backlash

The reaction from the opposition and legal community was immediate and severe. Opposition leader Yair Lapid condemned the bid, insisting that forgiveness could only follow accountability.

He said, “You cannot grant Netanyahu a pardon without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse and an immediate withdrawal from political life.”

Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot delivered an equally blunt rebuke, declaring, “Netanyahu, Israel is a state governed by the rule of law. There cannot be one legal system for ordinary citizens and another for you.”

Democracy watchdogs also raised alarms. Israel Democracy Institute president Yohanan Plesner warned that framing the request as an act of national service was deeply troubling. He said it sent a “problematic message to all public figures and to what our public norms might look like.”

Former Justice Ministry director-general Emi Palmor clarified that even if a pardon were granted, it would not automatically end the trial. Only the attorney general, she stressed, has the authority to suspend proceedings.

How the presidency is handling it

Herzog’s office described the application as “extraordinary” and confirmed it is being handled strictly by established legal procedures. The request has been passed to the Justice Ministry’s pardons department, which is tasked with gathering professional legal opinions.

These assessments will then be submitted to the president’s legal adviser, who will prepare a recommendation. Herzog has pledged to examine all materials “fully and responsibly” before reaching a decision.

While Herzog and Netanyahu have clashed politically in the past, their working relationship is considered functional. Herzog has previously indicated that some form of legal settlement might offer the cleanest resolution to the prime minister’s legal troubles, though no agreement has been reached.

The presidency holds broad constitutional powers over pardons, but experts stress that exercising them before conviction is exceptionally rare and legally sensitive.

The broader political stakes

Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, having first taken office in 1996. His current government, formed after the 2022 election, is regarded as the most right-wing coalition in the country’s history.

His tenure has been dominated by crises — from diplomatic standoffs to internal unrest. The brutal Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, the deadliest single-day assault on Jews since the Holocaust, took place under his watch. The ensuing Gaza war has brought massive destruction and sustained international criticism, while clashes with Hezbollah and tensions with Iran have multiplied.

Supporters argue these conditions justify lifting Netanyahu’s legal burdens. Critics counter that his government’s contentious judicial overhaul plans — which triggered mass protests in 2023 and partly resurfaced in 2025 — have already weakened public trust in democratic institutions.

What happens next

The process now follows a defined legal pathway:

First, the Justice Ministry’s pardons unit will compile professional opinions. These will go to the president’s legal adviser for detailed review. A formal recommendation will then be prepared for Herzog, who alone will decide whether to approve or reject the request.

Legal experts emphasise that the president is not bound by the adviser’s view, though it traditionally carries significant weight. Crucially, even a successful pardon would not automatically suspend the trial unless the attorney general intervenes.

The entire process could take weeks or even months, leaving Israel facing a prolonged period of legal and political uncertainty.

(With inputs from agencies)