In one of the most significant legal and political jolts Israel has seen in years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday submitted a formal request to President Isaac Herzog seeking a presidential pardon from his ongoing trial on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The request came about two weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump publicly announced that he had sent a letter urging Herzog to pardon Netanyahu, describing the charges as “unfair and politically motivated.” In his official petition to the Israeli president, Netanyahu explicitly referenced Trump’s support, saying the U.S. president “fully understands what leadership requires when facing unprecedented international and regional challenges.” Netanyahu argued that granting him a pardon now “would help heal internal rifts and strengthen national unity at a moment of a unique strategic opportunity in the region.” He hinted at potential efforts to expand the Abraham Accords, deter Iran, and deepen security partnerships — tasks he said required the “full and undivided attention of the political leadership,” despite his earlier claims before the Supreme Court that he could simultaneously govern and stand trial.
Netanyahu — who insisted in the past that he had been waiting for this trial to prove his innocence — is now seeking to end it altogether. But his argument appears implausible to many Israelis. In his letter, the embattled prime minister said he was “ready to put the interests of the state above his own personal interests,” implying that the challenges and opportunities of the moment outweigh his desire to prove his innocence in court. Notably, the request contained no admission of guilt or expression of remorse, a significant break from endorsed and standing judicial norms governing pardons. In a clear signal that a similar model could be applied in Israel, Netanyahu’s lawyers attached legal references to international precedents, including former U.S. President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, who was neither convicted nor formally tried and never admitted guilt.
“An Exceptional Request That Will Be Seriously Examined”
President Isaac Herzog said Netanyahu’s request “touches the emotions of many Israelis and sparks widespread debate,” stressing that the petition would be examined “carefully and in a manner that serves the interests of the state and society.” He urged Israelis to share their views through the president’s official website, insisting that only calm public dialogue is conducive to constructive discussion. He emphasized that “invective rhetoric will not influence me.” In a statement released Sunday and obtained by Alhurra, the president’s office confirmed receiving the official request and said it was forwarded to the legal department and then to the Justice Ministry’s Pardons Committee. The committee will gather legal positions from relevant authorities before the president’s advisers reassess the case and deliver a final recommendation.
Recurrent Support and Calculated Timing
Trump’s November 12th letter to Herzog, which received prominent coverage in Israeli and international media, dismissed the charges against Netanyahu as “politically motivated.” He wrote: “After we have achieved unmatched successes and after reining in Hamas, the time has come to pardon Bibi so he can unify Israel.” Trump added that “Netanyahu has stood fast against powerful enemies and fierce domestic opposition, and his focus should not be distracted now.” He said that “he respected the independence of Israel’s judiciary, but he thought the trial was unfair.” This was not Trump’s first intervention in the case. During his visit to the Knesset in October, he directly urged Herzog: “Mr. President, why not pardon him? Cigars and champagne? Who cares?” He later said raising the issue came at “perfect timing” despite its sensitivity. In several subsequent media appearances, he repeated his call to end the trial, describing it as a “ridiculous witch hunt” and declaring “The United States saved Israel. Now it’s time to save Netanyahu.”
Predictable Division and Controlled Escalation at the Fronts
In what has become a familiar chasm between Netanyahu’s supporters and opponents, reactions to his pardon request revealed a deep internal divide between those who see it as a chance to unify the nation and those who view it as a direct threat to justice. In the governing coalition, senior ministers defended the move as a “national imperative” amid heightened security tensions. Defense Minister Yisrael Katz called for closing the trial to strengthen the home front. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir insisted there was “no contradiction between judicial reform and the pardon request,” saying both served “state security.” The opposition argued that anyone seeking a pardon must first admit wrongdoing and resign from political life. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said he was willing to support a “comprehensive settlement” that included Netanyahu’s retirement. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said a pardon without expression of remorse and admission of guilt is an “affront to the law.” He warned Herzog not to fall into a “political trap cloaked by reconciliation rhetorics.”
Haaretz newspaper not only analyzed the situation from legal and political perspectives but also linked it to current security dynamics in the region. The paper argued that Israel is “deliberately keeping its northern fronts with Lebanon and Syria ablaze” as it lacked a clear and real exit strategy. It said ongoing military operations — from assassinating Hezbollah commanders to arresting activists on the Golan Heights — do not reflect a coherent strategy but rather a policy of keeping Israel in a state of chronic tension that bolsters Netanyahu’s narrative of existential threat and lends legitimacy to his pardon request. The newspaper said the government stalled de-escalation agreements despite signals from Beirut and Damascus that they are open to them. Instead of supporting the Lebanese army’s efforts to collect weapons or opening up channels to the Syrian regime, the government prefers conducting limited military deterrence and keeping volatile flashpoints active. In Haaretz’s view, this “controlled escalation” serves not only to pressure regional adversaries but also to cultivate a public view at home in favor of Netanyahu’s continued rule under the banner of maintaining stability. The Israeli landscape is thus divided not merely between right and left, but between those pushing to impose an extra-judicial pardon in the name of security, and those warning against using security as a pretext to undermine democracy.
Legal Debate and an Uncertain Horizon
Despite the strong political support Netanyahu enjoys from the right, his pardon request faces serious legal and constitutional hurdles. Under Israeli regulations, pardon petitions are typically considered only after judicial proceedings are fully concluded and usually require an admission of guilt and clear expression of remorse — conditions that are absent in Netanyahu’s case. Legal experts warn that the request could set an unheard-of precedent that would be challenged before the supreme court. Procedural guidelines published by the president’s office show that pardon requests undergo a complex process: the petition is received, transferred to the Justice Ministry’s Pardons Department, and then referred to relevant government agencies (police, Shin Bet, Prison Service, and others) for information and recommendations. These are forwarded to the Pardons Committee, which holds extensive deliberations with the president’s legal advisers before drafting a final recommendation to the president. Amid intense political pressure, the final decision rests with President Herzog, who now faces a historic moment. He could either open the door to Netanyahu’s political salvation, but risk triggering a legal firestorm, or he could close the door and let the trial run its course in one of the most consequential political and judicial cases in Israel’s history.
