Credits: UK Government / Wikimedia Commons — CC BY 2.0.
On 11/30/2025, President Isaac Herzog received a request for a presidential pardon filed by Benyamin Netanyahu, in the midst of his trial in Tel Aviv. The prime minister cites the war in Gaza and national cohesion. He wants to end hearings he considers untenable. This rare move puts Jerusalem before a test choice for the rule of law and the balance of powers, at a time when the 2026 electoral calendar looms.
An Unusual Request Placed On The President’s Desk
On 11/30/2025, President Isaac Herzog confirmed receipt of a presidential pardon request from Benyamin Netanyahu, 76, Prime Minister of Israel. The request — 111 pages signed by 28 lawyers — aims to halt the trial for corruption, fraud and breach of trust. That trial has been underway 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 offices, the prime minister says something. Indeed, he declares that continuing the hearings “tears Israel apart from within.” He also argues that appearing three times a week is “an impossible demand” for a sitting leader. He insists that an immediate end to the trial would calm tensions and promote national reconciliation. The country remains engaged in the war in Gaza launched after the 10/07/2023 attack.
The Presidential Pardon Power In Israel: A Regulated And Rarely Anticipated Power
In Israel, the president’s power of pardon is traditionally exercised after a conviction. This case is distinguished by its anticipatory nature, during trial and without an admission of guilt. Legal experts note that common use requires acknowledgment of the facts and an expression of remorse. However, the country’s customary constitution and case law grant the president a wide margin of discretion.
Mr. Netanyahu’s move places Isaac Herzog before 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. Opponents see them as a weakening of checks and balances, while supporters view them as a rebalancing between elected officials and judges.
In this context, a pardon before verdict could be seen by some as a new turning point and would influence the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
Box – What Does The Presidential Pardon Actually Allow?
The president can commute, reduce, or annull sentences and, more rarely, halt proceedings. In practice, the tool is mainly used to adjust the punishment once guilt is established. The current request made before judgment makes the exercise highly political.
What The Cases Against The Prime Minister Cover
The head of government is prosecuted in multiple cases. In one, Benyamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara are implicated for luxury gifts received from billionaires — cigars, champagne, jewelry — valued at about $260,000 (≈ €225,000). In other parts, he is suspected of seeking favorable media coverage in exchange for regulatory or economic advantages. The charges brought by the prosecutor include corruption and fraud. They also concern breach of trust or undue benefits, depending on the files.
At this stage, Mr. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing. He benefits from the presumption of innocence. His lawyers argue that continuing the trial harms the functioning of the state, distracts from security and diplomatic priorities, and 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 favors.
• Charges: combinations of corruption, fraud, breach of trust.
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 trial, in a very sensitive security context. The case remains controversial, but it shows that an anticipatory pardon is legally thinkable.
Another reference: Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009, 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 dependent on a clemency decision.
For Isaac Herzog, the analogy has its limits: a 2025 pardon would affect not only the person of the prime minister, but also the confidence placed in the justice system. Each scenario would have systemic effects on the rule of law and the legitimacy of institutions.
The Political And International Battle
The request has immediately split the political scene. Within the coalition, figures like Defense Minister Israel Katz argue for a quick outcome 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 critics warn that a pardon without these would be seen as an instrumentalization of the presidency, benefiting a directly interested actor.
Pressure crosses 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 that began as institutional and national.
A Divided Public Opinion
A poll published on 11/30/2025 by the aChord Center (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) shows a divided society: 49% opposed, 32% in favor, 19% neutral about the idea of a pardon. This snapshot, though dated and subject to change, illustrates the country’s enduring polarization, which has persisted since the sequence of judicial reforms and the war. It also sheds light on the prime minister’s political calculation. He has announced his intention to run in the next legislative elections, expected before 12/31/2026.
Methodology
The aChord poll measures opinion at a given moment and does not predict campaign dynamics. It should be read as a trend indicator, not a prediction.
What Short-Term Scenarios?
Three paths emerge:
- Pardon granted: the criminal proceedings would be halted, allowing Benyamin Netanyahu to govern and campaign without prolonged hearings. The institutional cost would be a sharp debate over the balance of powers and the neutrality of the presidency.
- Pardon denied: the trial would continue until verdict. The prime minister’s lawyers could consider a plea deal. This option has already been mentioned by legal experts. It would require a compromise between judicial risk and the political horizon.
- Decision deferred with advisory opinions: President Herzog could buy time by requesting analyses from the Ministry of Justice and the government legal adviser, opening a period of uncertainty weighing on the political agenda.
In every scenario, the core issue remains the credibility of institutions and public trust: how to reconcile the continuity of the state in wartime with the demand for an impartial justice?
Chronological Landmarks
- 2016: Opening of investigations targeting Benyamin Netanyahu.
- May 2020: Start of the trial at the Tel Aviv court.
- Late 2022: Return to power of the prime minister at the head of a coalition.
- 10/07/2023: Hamas attack in Israel; war in Gaza.
- 09/2025: Isaac Herzog publicly mentions the possibility of a pardon.
- 11/30/2025: Official filing of the presidential pardon request; release of videos justifying the move; publication of the aChord poll.
- Before 12/31/2026: Deadline for the next legislative elections in which Mr. Netanyahu says he intends to run.
Figures And Biographical Markers
What Europe Is Watching, What Israel Is Watching
The European Union and regional partners are watching the outcome closely. Indeed, it will reveal the resilience of Israel’s rule of law. This is particularly crucial during this period of historic tension. In Israel, the debate goes beyond a single person: it’s about the system’s capacity to arbitrate a conflict between 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 mend its civic trust.