Israeli PM Netanyahu seeks pre‑trial pardon from Herzog
Benjamin Netanyahu has formally asked President Isaac Herzog for a presidential pardon to bring his years‑long corruption trial to an end. Herzog’s office described the approach as extraordinary and said it would first collect legal advice before any decision. Netanyahu denies charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust and says ending the case would calm the country. According to Reuters and AP, the request was submitted on Sunday, 30 November 2025.
Before we go further, here’s what a pardon means in Israel. The Basic Law: The President gives the head of state power to “pardon offenders” or reduce or commute penalties. In practice, the request goes to the Justice Ministry for fact‑finding; if the President agrees, the Justice Minister adds a countersignature that provides parliamentary oversight. The Israel Democracy Institute explains this process and the countersignature rule is written into the Basic Law.
Can someone be pardoned before a verdict? In rare cases, yes. In 1986, during the Bus 300 affair, Israel’s Supreme Court held in Barzilai v Government of Israel that the President may grant clemency “before or after conviction”, though one justice dissented. Researchers at the Israel Democracy Institute note that policy since then treats pre‑conviction pardons as exceptional and justified only by overriding public interest or extreme personal circumstances.
What happens to the trial now? The filing itself doesn’t pause hearings. Legal experts quoted by Al Jazeera and the Washington Post say only the Attorney General can stay criminal proceedings; the President will seek opinions and decide later. Herzog’s office has not set a timetable, and the paperwork moves first through the Justice Ministry and then the President’s legal adviser.
Timing matters for students of law and politics alike. Judges scheduled Netanyahu to testify three times a week from November to speed up the case, with a fourth weekly hearing for other witnesses. In his video, he called that pace an impossible demand for a sitting prime minister. The Times of Israel and Israel National News reported the scheduling change.
Politics is centre stage. Netanyahu frames clemency as a path to national unity; opponents argue it would do the opposite. Opposition leader Yair Lapid says any pardon should follow an admission of guilt, remorse and a permanent exit from political life, while other critics warn that granting mercy mid‑trial risks placing leaders above the law. These positions were reported by major outlets including Reuters, AP and the Washington Post.
You’ll also hear about outside voices. Earlier in November, US President Donald Trump wrote to Herzog urging a “full pardon”. Herzog’s office replied that anyone seeking clemency must file a formal request - which Netanyahu has now done. Al Jazeera and the Guardian published the letter and the presidency’s response.
What a pardon would - and would not - do. If approved, it would end Netanyahu’s criminal exposure in the covered cases under Israeli law. It would not affect the International Criminal Court’s separate arrest warrant: ICC judges issued warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant on 21 November 2024, and judges left them in place in 2025 despite challenges. Domestic clemency does not reach international proceedings.
Why the decision is so sensitive. The Israel Democracy Institute cautions that using pre‑verdict pardons during live proceedings can undermine equality before the law, even if they are lawful. This sits in a wider debate: Israel’s judicial overhaul plans sparked huge street protests throughout 2023, and concerns about checks and balances remain central to public life.
Quick study for the classroom. A pardon wipes the legal slate for the listed offences. A commutation reduces a sentence but keeps a conviction. Amnesty is a broader political act now handled by government rather than the President. A stay of proceedings is the Attorney General’s tool. A plea deal is struck in court and typically involves admitting offences. The Israel Democracy Institute outlines these differences.
What to watch next. Expect weeks of legal review and political argument. Any final document needs the President’s signature and the Justice Minister’s countersignature - a step the Supreme Court has treated as largely procedural but, in extreme cases, open to refusal. With the next election scheduled for October 2026, every move will be judged in courtrooms and at the ballot box.
For teachers and students, this is a useful case study in how legal authority and political legitimacy meet. The President may have the power to pardon before conviction - but should that power be used while the court is still testing evidence? If you were advising the presidency, what public‑interest test would you apply, and why? Keep those questions at the centre of your discussion.