Presidential pardons exist to serve justice, not expediency. Traditionally, they are granted after conviction to mitigate excessive punishment, recognize rehabilitation or allow the offender and the public to move past a difficult chapter. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request that President Isaac Herzog pardon him during his corruption trial turns that purpose on its head. It suggests that legal accountability should yield to political convenience — particularly Netanyahu’s stated desire to “work with President [Donald] Trump as quickly as possible.”
According to legal analysts, the Israeli president can issue a pardon at any stage, including midtrial. That authority is real. But exercising it before a ruling — and without any admission of wrongdoing — raises fundamental questions. If there is no conviction and no acknowledgment of guilt, what exactly is being pardoned? The legal process? The burden of oversight? Or merely the stigma that Netanyahu claims threatens national unity?
Netanyahu argues that his ongoing trial has become a divisive spectacle and that ending it would ease tensions. He further contends that being required to appear in court three times weekly impedes his ability to govern and pursue diplomatic objectives. But pardons are not designed to address scheduling challenges or political strain. They remove the consequences of conviction — not preempt them before guilt or innocence is established.
The only precedent in Israel for a preconviction pardon — the Bus 300 affair — is narrow and exceptional. In 1984, two Palestinian terrorists captured alive were killed by Shin Bet agents. The matter was deemed so sensitive to national security that then-President Chaim Herzog pardoned the agents before charges were filed to avoid exposing classified information. That case involved immediate security concerns — not corruption allegations against a serving prime minister. Even then, it drew intense scrutiny. There is no precedent for interrupting a criminal trial in progress through a presidential pardon.
Still, the lack of precedent does not render it illegal. If the power exists, it may be used. The legal question appears settled; what remains are political and moral concerns. Granting a pardon midtrial — without admission of guilt — would ask the country to accept closure without truth. It would also suggest that those at the pinnacle of power may sidestep accountability when it becomes inconvenient.
Netanyahu invokes unity, national healing and diplomatic opportunity with the United States. But unity cannot be achieved by interrupting due process. Nor is diplomatic collaboration a legitimate basis for clemency. Advancing foreign relations is an obligation of the prime minister’s office, not a privilege that permits bypassing the judicial process. A leader’s ability to engage allies does not nullify his duty to face the law.
Herzog’s office rightly described the request as “extraordinary” and is proceeding with formal review. The absence of admission or contrition — while not legally necessary — is expected to weigh heavily as a practical barrier. Opposition figures argue that a pardon without resignation would be unacceptable.
The question is not whether Herzog can grant the pardon; it is whether he should. Doing so would recast the presidential pardon from an instrument of justice into one of avoidance. Israel should not be asked to pardon uncertainty. It should insist on seeing the legal process through — because accountability is not a hindrance to leadership. It is a prerequisite for it.
It is a sad fact of political life in Israel and the United States that the use of the law to target and take out opponents has become ubiquitous in the last decade. In both countries, liberal elites have sought to end the careers of the two men who were and are their principal nemesis.
While Netanyahu’s critics routinely call him the “crime minister” and speak of him in their weekly demonstrations as if he is a monster of corruption, if these appallingly thin cases are the best his opponents can muster to prove those assertions, then it is obvious that there’s not much to their claims other than partisan spite.