Explainer: What does Netanyahu’s extraordinary pardon request mean for Israel?

Netanyahu also claimed the investigations were irregular and aimed at incriminating him, and that ending the proceedings would help “heal rifts between different parts of the nation”. In a video message, he added that he would have preferred to complete the trial, but national interest “demanded otherwise”.

Herzog’s office has acknowledged receipt of the 111-page submission from the PM’s lawyer and confirmed it had been passed to the Pardons Department in the Ministry of Justice.

“The Office of the President is aware that this is an extraordinary request which carries significant implications. After receiving all relevant opinions, the President will responsibly and sincerely consider the request,” the statement said.

Opponents argue the request could weaken democratic institutions and signal that powerful figures are above the law. Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, said Netanyahu’s framing, insisting he is innocent yet requesting a pardon for the country’s sake, sends a troubling message about public norms. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said a pardon cannot be granted “without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse, and an immediate retirement from political life”.

Yossi Verter of Haaretz wrote that “every word and letter” of the request was “the complete opposite of what one would expect of a criminal seeking a pardon”, saying Netanyahu effectively warned that rejecting the request would leave Herzog responsible for ongoing national rifts and stalled reforms “only because the defendant has to show up in court three times a week”.

The president’s powers are outlined briefly in Basic Law: The President: “The President of the State has the power to pardon offenders and modify sentences.” While the law does not explicitly require a conviction or an admission of guilt, legal experts note that the term “offender” logically implies wrongdoing.

Traditionally, presidents intervene only after the legal process has concluded. A notable exception of the 1986 Kav (Bus) 300 affair, where Shin Bet members executed two Palestinian bus hijackers, immediately after a hostage crisis incident ended and they had been captured. The officers involved were pardoned by President Chaim Herzog but only after they admitted guilt and the Shin Bet chief agreed to resign. The Supreme Court upheld the pardon as a rare “safety valve” but emphasised its exceptional nature.

Following that case, Attorney-General guidelines established that presidents “as a rule” consider pardon requests only after conviction, with pre-conviction requests handled only in extraordinary circumstances.

The process begins with the submission of an application to the President’s Legal Office, which transfers it to the Pardons Department in the Ministry of Justice. The department gathers relevant materials, court files, police and prosecution assessments, prison-service opinions, medical records, and social reports and prepares a recommendation for the President. If the President approves, he signs the pardon, followed by a formal countersignature from the Minister of Justice.

Donald Trump, one of Netanyahu’s strongest international allies, sent President Herzog a formal letter on 12 November 2025 urging a full pardon, describing the case as a “political, unjustified prosecution” and praising Netanyahu as a “decisive wartime prime minister”. This followed an earlier Knesset speech in which Trump dismissed the allegations over “cigars and champagne”. Herzog’s office thanked Trump for his support for Israel but stressed that the justice system is independent and that pardons must follow formal procedures. Critics, including Lapid, accused Trump of inappropriate interference and warned that a politically motivated pardon would undermine the rule of law.

Netanyahu’s request is now with the Pardons Department, which will seek input from state bodies including the State Attorney’s Office and likely the Attorney-General, Gali Baharav-Miara. Its recommendation will pass to the justice minister, then to the president’s legal adviser, before reaching President Herzog. The process may take several weeks.

Experts believe the department is likely to recommend that Netanyahu must admit guilt, in line with the Kav 300 precedent. A full pardon without such an admission would almost certainly prompt High Court petitions and could trigger major public unrest.

Prof. Yedidia Stern, head of the Jewish People Policy Institute, warned that Netanyahu’s opponents would protest in the streets while supporters would claim vindication of their “deep state” narrative. Stern suggests Netanyahu’s legal team understands that a full pardon is unlikely and may be seeking a negotiated arrangement, possibly a conditional pardon requiring an admission of wrongdoing and a defined timeline for Netanyahu to exit political life.

While the Basic Law limits judicial review of presidential decisions, the High Court has intervened in rare cases, including the Kav 300 affair. Analysts say the court would likely step in if Herzog granted a full pardon without an admission of guilt. The legality of a conditional pardon is less clear and would depend on the exact terms. Some argue such a conditional arrangement could provide a compromise to ease the political and legal crisis, allowing all sides to claim a measure of resolution.

READ MORE

Without confession of guilt, Netanyahu’s pardon request a Hail Mary, experts say (Jeremy Sharon, Times of Israel) 

Benjamin Netanyahu asks Israel’s president for pardon in corruption case (The Guardian) 

Netanyahu didn't request a pardon; he is extorting Israel and its president through threats (Yossi Verter, Haaretz) 

Full text of Netanyahu's pardon request to President Herzog (Haaretz)