Netanyahu’s Bold Pardon Plea: Trump Weighs In, Israel Divides Deeper

It’s worth pausing on the timing. Israel is not unaccustomed to tumult, but what’s unfolding is a drama layered with personal and national stakes. Netanyahu, a figure whose tenure has survived wars as much as political storms, frames his plea as a shot at healing—he claims a pardon is less about dodging justice, more about lowering the heat threatening to consume Israeli society from within. In his words, ending the trial would “help lower the flames and promote broad reconciliation.” Notably, he has not conceded any wrongdoing. The pitch, delivered with Netanyahu’s characteristic poise, is that unity demands sacrifice, and letting the trial grind on stirs only more hostility.

But such a request doesn’t land in President Herzog’s office without stirring the waters. In fact, the President’s team quickly called it “extraordinary,” and for good reason. Presidential pardons in Israel follow a winding legal path; Herzog has indicated a decision won’t be rushed, with the process now in the hands of the Ministry of Justice’s Pardons Department. Their assessment—which will gather voices from legal authorities—is only the first checkpoint. After that, it’s back to the legal advisors in the President’s office, and only then, finally, a verdict from Herzog. It’s a cautious, measured procedure, emphasizing just how weighty the question is.

Overlaying all this is the distinctly American echo—Donald Trump’s direct intervention. The former U.S. President penned Herzog a letter, painting Netanyahu’s predicament as a “political, unjustified prosecution,” and urging a swift, unconditional pardon. Trump, never one for subtlety, described Netanyahu as “formidable and decisive,” leveraging their past partnership in his defense. The message from some of Netanyahu’s old allies abroad is clear: overlook the courts; focus on the bigger picture. In Israel, reactions split much as one might expect—staunch loyalists see global proof of the prime minister’s indispensability, while critics wince at foreign interference.

Opposition circles wasted little time in firing back. Yair Lapid, a leading opposition figure, bluntly argued that no pardon should be entertained without an admission of guilt and a promise to quit political life—anything less amounts, in his view, to a dangerous precedent. The Movement for Quality Government echoed him, warning that the fabric of the rule of law is at stake: if leaders can be pardoned while denying guilt, what’s to stop future abuses?

Legal scholars have joined the fray too. Emi Palmor, who spent years at the helm of Israel’s Justice Ministry, told reporters the law doesn’t allow this dance—one cannot simultaneously protest innocence and request a pardon to stop an active trial. “It’s impossible,” she stated flatly, pointing out that only the Attorney General—who oversees prosecutions—can halt a case outright, and there’s currently no sign that’s in the cards.

Should President Herzog grant Netanyahu’s request, it would mark an uncharted moment in Israeli politics. No sitting prime minister has sought a pardon before standing trial, and the case’s particulars—allegations of cozy deals among Israel’s elite, denied at every turn by Netanyahu—have only fueled conspiracy theories. Those close to him rue the trial as a premeditated plot hatched by political enemies. The media and the “deep state,” they claim, are orchestrating his downfall. The rhetoric isn’t new in Israel’s fractious climate, but its impact is impossible to ignore.

The irony, to seasoned observers, is unmistakable. Recall that Netanyahu once assailed Ehud Olmert, then prime minister and also under corruption clouds, declaring a leader embroiled in criminal investigation had no legitimacy left to govern. Olmert, perhaps chastened by precedent or simply worn down, resigned before he was indicted and would eventually serve time. Netanyahu, in contrast, has chosen defiance, intent on seeing the fight through to its conclusion.

It’s also impossible to divorce the current situation from Netanyahu’s recent attempts, since returning to the prime minister’s office in late 2022, to overhaul Israel’s judiciary. He argued disruption was overdue; critics—flooding the streets in mass protest—saw it as a naked attempt to blunt the very same courts now handling his case. The battle lines hardened, with scenes of demonstrations on Tel Aviv’s highways and outside the Knesset becoming regular fare on nightly news.

Now, as Netanyahu plays his most audacious card, the nation’s rift is laid painfully bare. Listen in on a Tel Aviv café, and you’ll hear opposing fears: some say only Bibi, as his supporters know him, can guide Israel safely in a time of crisis; others counter that if the highest offices turn into shelters from the law, Israel’s democracy is at peril. President Herzog, often a figure of symbolic unity, now shoulders a burden where any decision—pardon or not—will leave a mark on Israel’s political DNA.

The coming weeks promise no shortage of debate, hand-wringing, and impassioned argument. Israel’s political drama, as always, unfolds in full view—what happens next will test not only its leaders, but the public’s faith in its institutions.