Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for a presidential pardon—before conviction, without guilt admission, and while still in office—has sent shockwaves through Israel and beyond. This is more than a political drama; it’s a litmus test for the rule of law in one of the world’s most scrutinized democracies.
Why This Matters: This move isn’t just about one man’s fate. It’s about the integrity of Israel’s justice system, the boundaries of executive power, and the message sent to current and future leaders about accountability. If Netanyahu is granted a pardon before the conclusion of his trial, it could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences—not only for Israeli politics but also for democracies worldwide grappling with high-profile corruption cases.
What Most People Miss
- The Precedent is Extremely Rare: Israel has almost never granted a pre-conviction pardon, except for a 1986 case involving Shin Bet officials—who admitted guilt and resigned. Netanyahu refuses both.
- Trump’s Intervention: The former U.S. President’s call for a pardon adds international pressure and draws uncomfortable parallels to debates about legal immunity for world leaders.
- Legal Landmine: Unlike the 1986 Barzilai case, Netanyahu’s situation lacks both public contrition and willingness to step down, making legal scholars skeptical that the president even has authority to pardon him under these circumstances.
- Potential for Constitutional Crisis: If President Herzog grants the pardon, Israel’s Supreme Court could be forced to intervene—testing the resilience and independence of Israeli institutions.
Key Takeaways & Analysis
- A Test of Checks and Balances: Netanyahu’s request puts Israel’s separation of powers under the microscope. Can the executive override the judiciary for “national unity”?
- Public Division Intensifies: Netanyahu claims the trial “tears the country apart.” Critics argue a pardon would deepen the rift, eroding public trust in justice.
- International Echoes: The world is watching. Similar controversies have played out in Brazil (Lula da Silva), South Africa (Jacob Zuma), and the U.S. (Trump), all raising questions about how democracies handle allegations of high-level corruption.
Timeline of Recent Events
- 2020: Netanyahu’s corruption trial begins.
- November 12, 2025: Donald Trump writes to Israeli President Herzog, urging a pardon.
- November 30, 2025: Netanyahu submits his formal pardon request, citing national interest.
Pros and Cons of Granting the Pardon
- Pros:
- Could reduce national tensions, as Netanyahu claims
- Avoids prolonged, divisive trial amidst ongoing security crises
- Cons:
- Undermines the rule of law and judicial independence
- Sets a dangerous precedent for future leaders facing legal troubles
- May worsen public cynicism and division if perceived as elite impunity
Expert Commentary
“What Netanyahu wants now is actually to be above the law.” – Suzie Navot, constitutional law professor, Israeli Democracy Institute
“You cannot grant Netanyahu a pardon without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse, and an immediate withdrawal from political life.” – Yair Lapid, opposition leader
The Bottom Line
Israel stands at a crossroads. Whether the president bows to political pressure or upholds the tradition of justice will shape the nation’s trajectory for years to come. For citizens and observers alike, this is a moment that demands vigilance, debate, and a clear-eyed assessment of what true democratic accountability looks like.