Israel’s rule of law tested as Netanyahu requests a presidential pardon mid-trial

On November 30, 2025, Netanyahu requests an 'exceptional' presidential pardon during a trial in Tel Aviv. With 111 pages and 28 lawyers, he cites the war in Gaza and national cohesion to suspend the hearings. This move places Isaac Herzog in a major test regarding the rule of law and the separation of powers. The opposition demands an admission, remorse, and political withdrawal, while the Prime Minister still aims for the elections before the end of 2026.

On 30/11/2025, President Isaac Herzog received a request for a presidential pardon submitted by Benyamin Netanyahu, amid a trial in Tel Aviv. The Prime Minister cites the war in Gaza and national cohesion. He wishes to end hearings he deems untenable. This rare move places Jerusalem at a crossroads for the rule of law and the balance of powers, at the time of the 2026 electoral calendar.

An extraordinary request placed on the president’s desk

On 30/11/2025, President Isaac Herzog confirmed the receipt of a request for a presidential pardon from Benyamin Netanyahu, 76 years old, Prime Minister of Israel. The request — 111 pages signed by 28 lawyers — aims to halt the trial for corruption, fraud, and breach of trust. This trial has been ongoing against the head of government since May 2020. According to the presidency, it is an "exceptional request, with significant consequences." It must be examined with responsibility and seriousness by consulting the competent authorities.

In a video released by his services, the Prime Minister asserts something. Indeed, he declares that the continuation of the hearings "tears Israel apart from within." Moreover, he believes that appearing three times a week constitutes "an impossible demand" for a sitting leader. He assures that an immediate end to the trial would ease tensions. Furthermore, it would promote national reconciliation. Indeed, the country remains engaged in the war in Gaza that began after the attack on 07/10/2023.

The right of presidential pardon in Israel: a regulated and rarely anticipated power

In Israel, the president’s power of pardon is traditionally exercised after a conviction. The present case is distinguished by its anticipatory nature, during the trial, and without an admission of guilt. Legal experts indicate that common practice requires the recognition of facts and an expression of remorse. However, the country’s customary Constitution and jurisprudence grant the president a wide margin of discretion.

Mr. Netanyahu’s approach places Isaac Herzog in an institutional dilemma: respond to a political and social crisis with an act of clemency, or preserve the separation of powers by letting justice "run its course." The memory of the judicial reforms debated in 2023 revives this debate. Indeed, their opponents see them as a weakening of checks and balances. However, their supporters consider it a rebalancing between elected officials and judges.

In this context, a pardon before a verdict could be seen by some as a new inflection. Moreover, it would influence the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.

Box – What does the presidential pardon really allow?
The president can commute, reduce, or annul sentences and, more rarely, interrupt a procedure. In practice, the tool mainly serves to adjust the sanction once guilt is established. The current request before judgment makes the exercise eminently political.

What the cases against the Prime Minister cover

The head of government is prosecuted in several cases. In one of them, Benyamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara are implicated for luxury gifts received from billionaires — cigars, champagne, jewelry — valued at approximately $260,000 (≈ €225,000). In other aspects, he is suspected of seeking favorable media coverage in exchange for regulatory or economic advantages. The charges brought by the prosecution include corruption and fraud. Furthermore, they also concern breach of trust or undue advantages, depending on the cases.

At this stage, Mr. Netanyahu contests any wrongdoing. He benefits from the presumption of innocence. His lawyers argue that the continuation of the trial harms the proper functioning of the state. Moreover, it diverts attention from security and diplomatic priorities. Additionally, it weighs on national cohesion.

The cases in three points
• Valuable gifts: in-kind donations valued at ≈ $260,000.
• Media relations: suspicions of exchanges between favorable coverage and regulatory facilities.
• Charges: combinations of corruption, fraud, breach of trust.

The defense disputes any wrongdoing and considers the hearings scheduled three times a week to be untenable for a head of government. In the case file: luxury gifts estimated at around $260,000 and suspicions of exchanging benefits for favorable media coverage. Donald Trump wrote to Isaac Herzog to support a presidential pardon, adding international pressure to the domestic crisis. According to an aChord poll from 11/30/2025, 49% oppose it, 32% are in favor: society is deeply divided.
The defense disputes any wrongdoing and considers the hearings scheduled three times a week to be untenable for a head of government. In the case file: luxury gifts estimated at around $260,000 and suspicions of exchanging benefits for favorable media coverage. Donald Trump wrote to Isaac Herzog to support a presidential pardon, adding international pressure to the domestic crisis. According to an aChord poll from 11/30/2025, 49% oppose it, 32% are in favor: society is deeply divided.

Precedents and comparisons: 1986 and the Olmert case

Observers recall a precedent: in 1986, President Chaim Herzog granted a pardon to two Shin Bet agents before judgment, in a very sensitive security context. The case remains controversial, but it attests that an anticipatory pardon is legally conceivable.

Another reference: Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister between 2006 and 2009, had resigned before being sentenced later to 27 months in prison for fraud. The comparison illustrates two institutional paths: withdrawal from political life before the verdict, or remaining in office with an outcome pending a clemency decision.

For Isaac Herzog, the analogy has its limits: a pardon in 2025 would concern not only the person of the Prime Minister but also the trust placed in justice. Each scenario will have systemic effects on the rule of law and the legitimacy of institutions.

The political and international battle

The request has immediately divided the political scene. Within the coalition, officials like Defense Minister Israel Katz advocate for a quick resolution to end a "deep rift" in society. The opposition, led by Yair Lapid, sets three conditions for any clemency: admission of guilt, remorse, withdrawal from political life. Its detractors warn that a pardon, without this, would be perceived as an instrumentalization of the presidential institution. It would benefit a directly interested party.

The pressure extends beyond borders. In early November 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump sent a letter to Isaac Herzog supporting a presidential pardon, denouncing a "lawfare" against the Israeli Prime Minister. This intervention, unprecedented in its form, adds an international dimension to a debate initially institutional and national.

A fractured public opinion

A poll published on 30/11/2025 by the aChord Center (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) reveals a divided society: 49% opposed, 32% in favor, 19% neutral to the idea of a pardon. This snapshot, although dated and subject to change, illustrates the country’s enduring polarization. This has persisted since the sequence of judicial reforms and the war. It also sheds light on the political calculation of the Prime Minister. He has announced his intention to run in the next legislative elections. These are expected before 31/12/2026.

Methodology
The aChord poll measures an opinion at a given moment and does not predict campaign dynamics. It should be read as an indicator of trend, not as a prediction.

What short-term scenarios?

Three paths emerge:

  1. Pardon granted: the criminal procedure would be interrupted, allowing Benyamin Netanyahu to govern and campaign without long-term hearings. The institutional cost would be an intense debate on the balance of powers and the neutrality of the presidential role.
  2. Pardon denied: the trial would continue until the verdict. The Prime Minister’s lawyers might consider a plea bargain. This path has already been mentioned by legal experts. It would require a compromise between the judicial risk and the political horizon.
  3. Deferred decision with consultative opinions: President Herzog could buy time by seeking analyses from the Ministry of Justice and the government’s legal advisor, opening a period of uncertainty that would weigh on the political agenda.

In each scenario, the core issue remains the credibility of institutions and the public’s trust: how to reconcile the continuity of the state in times of war with the demand for impartial justice?

Chronological markers

  • 2016: Opening of investigations targeting Benyamin Netanyahu.
  • May 2020: Start of the trial at the Tel Aviv court.
  • End of 2022: Return to power of the Prime Minister at the head of a coalition.
  • 07/10/2023: Hamas attack in Israel; war in Gaza.
  • 09/2025: Isaac Herzog publicly mentions the possibility of a pardon.
  • 30/11/2025: Official submission of the presidential pardon request; release of videos justifying the approach; publication of the aChord poll.
  • Before 31/12/2026: Deadline for the next legislative elections in which Mr. Netanyahu says he wants to run.

Characters and biographical markers

At 76 years old, after more than 18 years in power, Netanyahu remains at the center of Israeli political life. A presidential pardon before a verdict, which is extremely rare, recalls the Shin Bet precedent in 1986 and raises questions about the use of this power. Refusal: trial until the verdict or a possible plea deal; acceptance: a freed-up campaign but increased institutional debate. Beyond one man, it serves as a barometer: reconciling the continuity of a state at war with equality for all before the law.
At 76 years old, after more than 18 years in power, Netanyahu remains at the center of Israeli political life. A presidential pardon before a verdict, which is extremely rare, recalls the Shin Bet precedent in 1986 and raises questions about the use of this power. Refusal: trial until the verdict or a possible plea deal; acceptance: a freed-up campaign but increased institutional debate. Beyond one man, it serves as a barometer: reconciling the continuity of a state at war with equality for all before the law.
  • Benyamin Netanyahu: Prime Minister (over 18 years in total since 1996), a central figure in Israeli politics. [Biography](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahou).
  • Isaac Herzog: President of the State of Israel since 2021. [Biography](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Herzog).
  • Ehud Olmert: former Prime Minister, convicted in 2016. [Biography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Olmert).
  • Shin Bet: internal security service. [References](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_de_s%C3%A9curit%C3%A9_isra%C3%A9lienne).
  • President of the State of Israel: role and responsibilities, including pardon. [Institution](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A9sident_de_l%27%C3%89tat_d%27Isra%C3%ABl).

What Europe watches, what Israel watches

The European Union and regional partners are closely watching the outcome. Indeed, it will reveal the resilience of the Israeli rule of law. This is particularly crucial in this period of historical tension. In Israel, the debate goes beyond a single person. It concerns the system’s ability to arbitrate a conflict. This conflict opposes the demands of governmental efficiency and judicial impartiality.

Ultimately, Isaac Herzog’s decision will serve as a barometer: how does a democratic state accommodate the need for stability with the promise of equality before the law? Whatever the outcome, the country will need to reweave its civic trust.

This article was written by Christian Pierre.