Netanyahu just made the craziest move of his career.
Netanyahu’s pardon request isn’t desperation. Regardless of whether you like him as a political leader or agree with his politics, it’s another masterful move from “The Magician.”
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for a presidential pardon, submitted this past Sunday, marks one of the most consequential constitutional and political moments in Israel’s modern history.
Five and a half years after his trial began (and nearly a decade after the initial investigations), Netanyahu has turned to President Isaac Herzog for intervention.
For starters, Israel’s political system features a democratically elected prime minister who runs the government and makes executive decisions, as well as a president (appointed by Israel’s parliament) who serves as a largely ceremonial head of state with the power to grant pardons.
Netanyahu faces three corruption cases: Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000.
In Case 1000, Netanyahu and his family are accused of receiving approximately 700,000 shekels (approximately $215,000 USD) in benefits (including expensive cigars, champagne, and jewelry) from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer. There is no bribery charge here, but the indictment accuses him of fraud and breach of trust.
In Case 2000, Netanyahu is accused of negotiating a quid pro quo with Israel’s largest newspaper, known in English as Ynet. According to the indictment, Netanyahu is accused of agreeing to push legislation designed to hurt Ynet’s rival newspaper, Israel Hayom; in exchange, Ynet’s publisher would improve media coverage of Netanyahu. Again, the charges are fraud and breach of trust, not bribery.
In Case 4000, this is the most serious case, and the only one including bribery. Prosecutors allege that, in exchange for positive coverage on the popular Israel news site Walla, Netanyahu used his regulatory power to grant business benefits worth over 1.8 billion shekels (approximately $500 million USD) to the owner of Israeli telecommunications company Bezeq. This case forms the core of the legal threat facing Netanyahu.
Under Israeli law, the President (Isaac Herzog) holds the authority to issue pardons, typically after the completion of a criminal process. The rationale is to allow the President to consider broader moral, humanitarian, or societal factors that sit outside the strict legal framework. Once a request is filed, it is transferred from the President’s Office to the Pardons Department in the Justice Ministry. There, officials gather input from relevant state authorities, including the Prosecutor’s Office, and prepare a professional evaluation.
Only after these assessments are returned does the President’s Legal Advisor draft a separate recommendation for the President. The final decision rests with President Herzog alone.
In Israel, pardons before a guilty verdict are exceedingly rare. They undermine the very purpose of the pardon process, which presumes a completed legal outcome. The only remotely comparable case is the 1984 Bus 300 affair, in which agents from the Shin Bet (an Israeli intelligence agency) murdered Palestinian terrorists and then tried to cover it up. Before any police investigation began, President Chaim Herzog (father of today’s President Isaac Herzog) issued preemptive pardons to the agents for murder, manslaughter, and obstruction of justice. But even in that extraordinary national-security case, pardons were tied to conditions of resignation, publicly expressing remorse, and formally pleading guilty.
Therefore, Netanyahu’s request, submitted in the middle of an active trial, is nearly unprecedented. Even one of his former defense attorneys said in an interview that a pardon cannot be granted unless Netanyahu admits guilt — meaning Netanyahu’s current approach is legally incompatible with the pardon mechanism. This underscores the deep tension between the political narrative (“I am innocent and persecuted”) and the legal framework (which typically requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing).
On Sunday, Netanyahu’s attorney, Amit Hadad, submitted two documents to the Office of the President: a formal legal letter justifying the request, and a personal appeal letter from Netanyahu himself. Both were immediately made public in Hebrew. Sources estimate that the formal review process (collecting materials, analyzing precedents, and drafting legal opinions) will take up to two months.
Within hours of submitting his request on Sunday, Netanyahu released a video message in Hebrew explaining why he was seeking a pardon before his trial concludes. For context, Netanyahu has previously said, explicitly, that he is completely innocent and wouldn’t seek a pardon from the President.
In his letter and video, Netanyahu cited multiple reasons, such as the length of the proceedings. “Almost a decade has passed since the investigations began,” he said. “The trial has gone on for nearly six years, and it is expected to continue for many more.”
Netanyahu also claimed that testimony and evidence presented so far “crash the case entirely” and demonstrate that the evidentiary foundation was constructed “through severe wrongdoing.”
The third reason, according to Netanyahu, is the new court-imposed testimony schedule, requiring Netanyahu to testify three times a week — a burden he labeled “impossible,” unprecedented, and incompatible with his responsibilities as prime minister. “Israel faces enormous challenges and enormous opportunities,” he stated. “National unity is required to meet them. The continuation of the trial tears us apart from within.”
Netanyahu added another layer of complexity when he said in his video: “President Trump called for an immediate end to the proceedings so that together we could advance vital shared interests between Israel and the United States during a window that may not return.”
In short, Netanyahu argues that ending the trial is a national necessity.
Hebrew media outlets reported that Herzog may respond to Netanyahu not with an outright rejection or acceptance, but with a conditional proposal. Herzog’s office denied the reports, but the idea has captured the public imagination because it mirrors the 1984 Bus 300 precedent: a pardon paired with concessions. Herzog might propose acknowledgment of wrongdoing, limitations on Netanyahu’s future political activity (namely retiring from politics), and a plea bargain.
Sources close to Herzog have indicated that Netanyahu would not receive a pardon without paying a “significant” price. Others point out the difficulty of enforcing political retirement in plea deals; longtime Israeli Member of Parliament Aryeh Deri agreed to resign from the Knesset in 2021 as part of a plea deal, but returned the next year.
People close to Netanyahu have reportedly said he will not negotiate conditions with Herzog. Their stance: “Either there’s an unconditional pardon or the prime minister will continue with his trial until he is acquitted.”
As I see it, this stance is Netanyahu signaling to his base that he’s decisive, unafraid, and always willing to take bold action when the stakes are high. But just as he reversed his long-standing claim that he would never seek a pardon, it’s obvious that every option is on the table now — and he understands better than anyone how to turn that flexibility into political advantage.
Behind closed doors, he and Herzog could quietly agree on an exit from political life; in public, they could maintain that the pardon is not contingent on his retirement, while Netanyahu announces — “separately” — that he is stepping back to “focus on my health,” or “spend more time with my family,” or some other dignified rationale.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu continues to deny all wrongdoing and maintains that the cases were fabricated by police and prosecutors in what he calls an attempted political coup. This doesn’t get talked about enough (if at all) in international media and even English-speaking Israel media enough — that Netanyahu has been subjected to lawfare, the use of legal mechanisms as political weapons.
In this view, the charges against Netanyahu are not purely about justice or accountability. Rather, they are attempts to achieve by courtroom what cannot be achieved at the ballot box. Netanyahu, despite scandals, has shown a remarkable ability to retain public support and win elections — an ability that frustrates both his rivals and segments of the Israeli Left, of which Isaac Herzog used to be (and could still be) a part back when he was a Member of Parliament from 2003 to 2018.
If Herzog responds with “Yes, but then you need to acknowledge admission of guilt,” Netanyahu will almost certainly reject it, knowing that admitting guilt would expose him legally and shatter the political narrative he has built for years: that he is the victim of a politically motivated prosecution. If Herzog responds with, “Yes, but then you must retire from politics,” Netanyahu will spin this to the Israeli public as an attempt from the Left-wing to impose their political will on the country (which, at times, is historically accurate).
So, there’s a good chance that Netanyahu just checkmated the Israeli justice system — and this should not come as a surprise to anyone. Netanyahu, regardless of whether you like him as a political leader or agree with his politics, is a masterful politician and one of the smartest people on this planet.
The real question is whether Netanyahu wants to remain in politics. If he doesn’t, he just created a respectable offramp, as I wrote: Herzog and Netanyahu could privately agree that publicly they will affirm the pardon is not conditioned on Netanyahu’s retirement, while Netanyahu simultaneously announces — “separately” — he is stepping back to “focus on my health,” or “spend more time with my family,” or some similarly dignified explanation.
If Netanyahu wants to stay in politics, then he has every incentive to drag this process out, frame the pardon request as an act of national responsibility, and force Herzog into a corner where any conditional offer can be portrayed as political persecution. In this scenario, Netanyahu uses the very structure of Israel’s constitutional system — a political prime minister appealing to an apolitical president — to reinforce his long-standing argument that the legal establishment is being manipulated against him. A conditional pardon becomes proof of a conspiracy; an unconditional pardon becomes vindication. And if the request is rejected, he simply returns to the courtroom and tells the public, “I tried to end the divisions, but they refused.”
In that sense, the pardon request becomes less about ending a trial and more about shaping the political terrain ahead of the next election. (General elections are scheduled for no later than next October.) By submitting the request now, Netanyahu has essentially guaranteed that every possible outcome strengthens his narrative, that he alone stands between Israel and a hostile Israeli Left, that the country needs his steady hand during wartime, and that the legal case against him is collapsing anyway.
Whether he is granted a pardon or not, the request itself is a political act — and Netanyahu, known in Israel as “The Magician,” knows as well as anyone how to turn a legal proceeding into a strategic battlefield.
It would be arrogant indeed for an Englishman to pretend to understand the intricacies of Israeli politics.
But perceptually, I suggest this article is correct.
As with POTUS, the Left can't seem to beat Bibi at the ballot box, so lawfare is wheeled in.
Broadly, it's the tactic also used in France and Germany to try and defeat the centre Right.
Whilst stating again I don't fully understand Israeli politics, the dishonest Western MSM coverage of the IDF and the war tells me all I need to know - I wish that we had a decisive and patriotic leader such as Bibi right here in the UK.
I detect NDS, similar to TDS, in many Israelis. It complicates the truth, especially when the justice system becomes politically activist similar to what we have in US.