‘A Direct Attempt To Bypass the Courts’: Scholars Warn on Netanyahu Pardon Request
Legal experts argue that using presidential clemency before a verdict would overturn long-standing norms that reserve pardons for those who have accepted responsibility
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s move to seek a pardon from President Isaac Herzog, delivered through a carefully scripted video released on his social media platforms, has set off one of the most consequential constitutional debates Israel has faced in decades. The prime minister framed the appeal as a reluctant but necessary step, saying the legal process had reached a point where he was required to testify “three times a week,” a demand he called “impossible for any citizen, let alone a sitting prime minister.” He argued that halting the proceedings now would “lower the flames” and enable the country “to seize immense strategic opportunities.”
What might normally be dismissed as a dramatic political gesture has instead forced Israel’s institutions into a rare confrontation over the limits of executive power. The request arrives at a moment when the judiciary is already under intense public scrutiny, the presidency is trying to maintain neutrality, and the political system is emerging from years of bitter internal conflict. Netanyahu insisted that his motivation is national rather than personal, saying he remains confident of a full acquittal but believes “the nation cannot afford” the distraction of a prolonged trial. He also cited repeated appeals from President Donald Trump, saying the American president had urged Herzog to “end the trial immediately” so that the two leaders could pursue joint priorities in a unique diplomatic window.
The reaction across Israel’s political and legal communities was immediate. Opposition lawmaker Efrat Rayten from the Democrats Party, who previously handled clemency applications as an attorney, told The Media Line that the request “does not meet the legal standards required for consideration,” noting that pardons in Israel are not normally reviewed before a conviction or an explicit admission of guilt. “There is no acknowledgment, no remorse, and no willingness to leave public life,” she said. For Rayten, the central issue is the precedent such a move might establish. “A pardon at this stage would tell the public that some people stand above the law,” she warned, adding that such a decision would “break the system at its core.”
A pardon at this stage would tell the public that some people stand above the law
Rayten described the long arc of public confrontation around Netanyahu’s legal troubles, arguing that political attacks on law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts have eroded public trust. Allowing a sitting prime minister to halt a criminal trial mid-process, she said, would “cement the idea that institutions can be bent according to political needs,” a message she believes would echo long after the case itself fades.
The academic community voiced concerns of a similarly structural nature. Dr. Dana Blander, a research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, told The Media Line that Netanyahu’s request amounts to “a direct attempt to bypass the courts.” She explained that the pardon mechanism in democratic systems is traditionally used “only after the judiciary has completed its work,” often in cases where an individual has accepted responsibility. Using it during an active trial, she said, is “extraordinarily rare” and risks placing the president in a role that “overrides judicial authority rather than complementing it.”
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
It does not say the charges were false; it simply interrupts the judicial process
Blander emphasized the pressures now placed on President Herzog, noting that “whatever decision the president takes, a large segment of the public will see it as illegitimate.” This, she argued, is precisely why mid-trial clemency is so problematic: it forces the presidency into a politically exposed position that jeopardizes its customary role as a stabilizing institution. She added that “a pardon is not an acquittal,” a point she said has become muddled in public debate. “It does not say the charges were false; it simply interrupts the judicial process,” she explained, suggesting that in the present context, such an interruption could erode the principle of equal treatment under the law.
While criticism from the opposition and legal scholars was swift, voices within the governing coalition presented a fundamentally different reading of the situation. Likud lawmaker Moshe Saada, a former senior prosecutor with more than two decades of experience in the State Attorney’s Office, told The Media Line that the case against Netanyahu “is heading toward full acquittal.” Saada argued that the prolonged timeline of the trial harms Israel more than it harms the prime minister. “The public pays the price,” he said, “because instead of a prime minister fully focused on the strategic challenges facing the country, you have a leader required to testify three times a week. It drains attention, and it drains capacity.”
For Saada, the decision to request clemency is not a retreat but a sacrifice. “He says clearly: ‘I didn’t do anything, I’m not admitting anything,’” Saada noted, adding that in his view the prime minister made the appeal “for the sake of the nation, not for himself.” He framed the request as evidence that Netanyahu is choosing “the public interest over personal vindication,” even though the prime minister believes he would eventually be cleared of all charges.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich took a more aggressive approach. He argued that Netanyahu “has been pursued for years” by what he described as a deeply compromised legal system and said the president should “respond positively” to the request. Smotrich insisted that the coalition’s judicial reform agenda would proceed irrespective of the pardon debate, saying the necessity of reform “stands separate from the prime minister’s personal case.”
Other Likud ministers echoed similar themes, casting the pardon request as a matter of good governance. Several signed letters urging Herzog to intervene, arguing that the prime minister cannot effectively lead the country while tied to a courtroom schedule. Whether these appeals will carry weight inside the President’s Residence remains unclear, but they reflect a broader view within the coalition that the demands of the trial have become incompatible with the demands of the office.
President Donald Trump’s involvement has added another layer of complexity. The US president referenced the case during his address at the Knesset in October and later sent a letter to Herzog pressing for clemency. Critics of Netanyahu say the intervention of a foreign leader in a domestic criminal matter is deeply inappropriate. Dr. Blander called the foreign pressure “an additional distortion” that contributes to an environment where decisions “no longer follow institutional logic but political momentum.” Supporters of the prime minister instead portray President Trump’s involvement as a recognition of the strategic importance of stability in Jerusalem and the urgency of the diplomatic opportunities they believe both leaders can pursue together.
Herzog must now choose among three paths, each carrying institutional risks. He may decline to consider the request on procedural grounds, citing the lack of admission and the ongoing nature of the trial. He may open a formal review, allowing the Justice Ministry to examine the appeal. Or he may grant clemency, a step that would almost certainly prompt an immediate petition to the Supreme Court challenging the legality of intervening in a trial before a verdict. The implications of such a decision would extend far beyond Netanyahu’s personal situation, shaping the boundaries of presidential power for years to come.
Legal scholars note that the only comparable instance in Israeli history occurred in the mid-1980s, when the president granted pardons to senior security officials in the so-called “Bus 300 affair,” citing reasons of national security. But both Rayten and Blander stressed that the current case differs in key respects: the officials in the earlier episode had acknowledged their actions in writing, and their departure from public roles was already clear. Netanyahu, by contrast, has maintained his innocence and has stated publicly that he intends to remain in office.
The public consequences of the request remain difficult to predict. Rayten warned that allowing a sitting prime minister to halt his own trial would cause “severe, lasting harm to public trust” at a moment when institutions are already struggling to maintain credibility. Blander suggested that even considering the request places the presidency in an unprecedented political role. Saada, meanwhile, argued that the urgency of Israel’s security environment requires the government’s full attention and said the prime minister’s willingness to pursue clemency reflects “a readiness to pay a personal price.”
In the absence of a clear institutional roadmap, the debate now turns on competing visions of democratic resilience. For the opposition and the legal community, the core concern is the preservation of the judiciary’s independence and the enforcement of legal norms. For the coalition, the overriding priority is effective governance during a period of heightened uncertainty. Each side insists that its position best safeguards the nation.
As the decision moves toward Herzog’s desk, one reality appears constant: whatever path he chooses, the outcome will define not only the trajectory of Netanyahu’s legal case but also the expectations placed on Israel’s constitutional order. Whether the pardon is rejected, reviewed, or granted, the episode will likely shape Israel’s political and judicial landscape long after the current crisis concludes.
