Six years after he was indicted on charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu submitted a formal pardon request to President Isaac Herzog on Sunday, seeking an end to his long-running and unprecedented corruption trial.

Netanyahu did not admit guilt and, in a video statement, continued to contest the charges against him and the legitimacy of the process by which he was indicted. He did not indicate any readiness to step down as prime minister, arguing that, if he were pardoned, he would be free to more effectively advance Israel’s interests.

He further argued that the trial was tearing Israel apart and that its immediate conclusion “would greatly help lower the flames and promote broad reconciliation.”

The formal documents, released in full by Herzog’s office, include an 111-page request from Netanyahu’s lawyer Amit Hadad and a letter signed by Netanyahu. According to Herzog’s office, Hadad submitted the request to the President’s Residence Legal Department.

The request marks a new phase in Netanyahu’s legal ordeal, which has stretched across years of shifting electoral fortunes, political turmoil, pandemic, wars and protests. For the entire time since the indictment, and after the trial began in 2020, Netanyahu’s opponents have called on him to step down over the charges.

Netanyahu, throughout those years, has declared his innocence time and again and decried the trial as a politically motivated witch hunt. The pardon request, likewise, included no apology or admission of guilt.

The Israel Democracy Institute think tank noted, in a recent “explainer” article, that “No law requires an admission of guilt as a condition for a pardon,” but that the attorney general’s office has long directed that handling pardon requests before conviction should occur “only in rare cases,” and that the Supreme Court, following the presidential pardoning of Shin Bet suspects before a trial in the 1984 Bus 300 affair, stated that such presidential intervention must be reserved for “exceptional” circumstances.

In the request, Hadad cited Netanyahu’s duties as prime minister, and claimed a pardon would heal the societal divisions caused in part by the trial and its ripple effects.

“Granting this request will allow the prime minister to devote all of his time, abilities, and energy to advancing Israel in these critical times,” wrote Hadad, “and to dealing with the challenges and opportunities that lie before it. In addition, granting the request will help mend rifts between different segments of the public, and open the door to lowering the flames of tensions, all for the purpose of strengthening the country’s national resilience.”

Herzog said he would evaluate the request based on expert opinion from the Justice Ministry. But political sparring got underway almost immediately.  Netanyahu’s allies endorsed the request as a salve for, as one put it, “charges that were born in sin,” while the premier’s opponents and critics broadly called on the president to reject it, calling it a “deadly blow to the rule of law.”

Netanyahu is charged with one count of bribery and three counts each of fraud and breach of trust, in three separate cases. The charges relate to allegations of improper manipulation of the press and receiving illicit gifts in return for government favors. He denies any wrongdoing, and has argued that the charges were fabricated in an attempted political coup by the police and state prosecution.

His trial began in 2020 after years of investigations. Delayed by the coronavirus pandemic as well as by the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack and subsequent war in Gaza, it is still far from reaching an end. Save for a roughly year-and-a-half-long period from mid-2021 to the end of 2022, Netanyahu has led Israel for all of it, and is the first sitting prime minister to go on trial.

Netanyahu: If pardoned, I could more vigorously advance Israel’s interests

In his video statement, Netanyahu said it was in Israel’s national interest for the trial to end.

“Nearly a decade has passed since the investigations against me began,” he said. “The trial in these matters has been ongoing for almost six years, and it is expected to continue for many more years.”

Netanyahu claimed, without offering evidence, that it was becoming increasingly clear that “serious crimes” were committed in building the case against him. He said that his own interest remained in seeing the legal process through until he is cleared of all charges.

However, he claimed, it would be better for the country if the trial were to end early. He also cited the schedule of court hearings mandated by the judges in the case, requiring him to testify three times a week.

“The security and diplomatic reality — the national interest — demand otherwise,” said Netanyahu.

“Israel is facing enormous challenges, and alongside them great opportunities,” he continued. “To repel the threats and realize the opportunities, national unity is required.”

He argued that the trial’s continuation “tears us apart from within. It stirs divisions and deepens rifts. I am certain, as are many others in the nation, that an immediate end to the trial would greatly help lower the flames and promote broad reconciliation — something our country desperately needs.”

One factor in his decision to seek a pardon, Netanyahu said, was US President Donald Trump’s recent letter to Herzog requesting the measure. The letter, sent earlier this month on official White House letterhead, came after Trump urged Herzog from the Knesset rostrum during an October speech to pardon Netanyahu. The letter had suggested a pardon could help Netanyahu normalize Israel’s relations with neighboring countries.

“I hereby call on you to fully pardon Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been a formidable and decisive War Time Prime Minister,” the US president wrote, “and is now leading Israel into a time of peace, which includes my continued work with key Middle East leaders to add many additional countries to the world changing Abraham Accords.”

Netanyahu echoed that contention in his video statement.

“President Trump called for an immediate end to the trial so that, together with him, I could advance even more vigorously the vital interests shared by Israel and the United States, within a time window that may never return,” he said. He also cited his electoral victories while under investigation and on trial.

“I have been elected time after time in democratic elections, and I have received your trust to continue serving as Israel’s prime minister, first and foremost to fulfill these historic goals,” he said. “For these reasons, my attorneys have today submitted a request for a pardon to the president.”

The trial has long been a flashpoint in Israeli politics, a fact that Netanyahu acknowledged in a one-page letter attached to the filing. But he did not apologize over the allegations against him or the controversy they have caused; nor did he admit guilt in the letter or video statement.

“In recent years, tensions and disputes have increased between different segments of the nation and between the various branches of the state,” he wrote in the letter. “I am aware that the proceedings being conducted in my case have become a focal point for confrontations.”

“I bear broad public and ethical responsibility, with an understanding of the consequences of all these events,” he added.

Opposition outcry

Members of the political opposition called on Herzog to reject the pardon request, arguing that ending the trial would harm the rule of law and allow Netanyahu to evade responsibility for his alleged actions.

In a public video appeal addressed to Herzog, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid declared that the president “cannot pardon Netanyahu without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse and an immediate retirement from political life.”

Yair Golan, leader of the left-wing Democrats alliance, insisted that “only the guilty seek a pardon.”

“The only path to unity in the nation is by stopping the machine of hatred and poison, by halting the dismantling of the legal and democratic systems. And this path begins with your resignation and leaving public life in Israel,” Golan said, addressing Netanyahu and accusing him of being “afraid of the truth.”

“The only possible deal is for you to take responsibility, admit guilt, and give the country leave to breathe and recover,” he added.

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman accused Netanyahu of trying to distract the public from pressing issues facing the nation such as the situation in Gaza and the attempt by the coalition to pass a law allowing Haredi men to avoid military conscription.

“Remember that just five minutes ago there was a war here, an evasion law, two hostages who still haven’t returned, a collapsing economy, and skyrocketing food prices? And what about the cover-up committee they’re setting up? Has it all just vanished? We must not let him control the public discourse,” Liberman wrote.

Criticism also came from watchdogs. The Movement for Quality Government asserted that granting Netanyahu a pardon in the middle of the legal proceedings against him would constitute “a deadly blow to the rule of law and to the principle of equality before the law, the very soul of Israeli democracy.”

“Granting a pardon to a prime minister accused of serious offenses of fraud and breach of trust would send a clear message that some citizens are above the law,” the group stated, calling on Herzog to “stand firm against the pressures and defend Israeli democracy.”

As part of the public spectacle surrounding the trial, political allies of Netanyahu have become a regular fixture at his court hearings, including ministers in his government. Following his request, several of them called on Herzog to grant the request, echoing his claims in the letter and video.

Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a statement that granting the pardon would “bring an end to the legal charges that were born in sin and have created a severe division that splits the nation.”

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that “it is clear to any reasonable person that Netanyahu has been persecuted for years by a corrupt judicial system that fabricated political cases against him.”

The far-right minister also linked Netanyahu’s trial to the overhaul championed by his government, which aims to shift power away from the judiciary into the hands of the executive branch. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, another far-right leader, likewise emphasized what he described as the “critical necessity” of enacting changes to the judicial system.

Education Minister Yoav Kisch charged that the trial is causing “serious harm to the prime minister’s ability to realize political opportunities with President Trump.”

But not every Netanyahu ally agreed with the move. Firebrand Likud MK Tally Gotliv asked why the prime minister would make such a request and said she felt “pain and humiliation in light of the pardon submission.”

“Your trial is bigger than you and all of us. You have demonstrated the persecution against you and the right in ways that cannot be described. Only in recent weeks has the full extent of the persecution and lies been revealed in all their horror,” she wrote on X.

Herzog said a long process lies ahead. The Justice Ministry Pardons Department “will gather the opinions of all the relevant authorities in the ministry,” his office said. It will then send their recommendations to the president’s legal adviser.

The president is empowered to grant pardons to those convicted in court — and, on very rare occasions, even before legal proceedings have concluded, if it is deemed to be in the public interest.

“The Office of the President is aware that this is an extraordinary request, which carries with it significant implications,” Herzog’s office said in a statement. “After receiving all of the relevant opinions, the president will responsibly and sincerely consider the request.”

The legal context

A request for a pardon is not an admission of guilt, and Herzog can theoretically pardon Netanyahu even during the course of his trial, according to an analysis from the Israel Democracy Institute.

“In general, a pardon is an act of compassion and justice granted based on the individual with consideration of their unique personal circumstances,” wrote IDI in an analysis earlier this month, before Netanyahu submitted his official request. “Therefore, there are no preconditions for a pardon, and the law does not specify what the president’s considerations must be when reviewing a pardon request.”

“No law requires an admission of guilt as a condition for a pardon. A pardon may be granted even to someone who maintains their innocence, and it is meant to allow forgiveness, correction, or rehabilitation, not to determine guilt or innocence,” according to the IDI article’s author, Dana Blander.

The issue of pardoning someone before a ruling has been issued is more problematic, however. “The general rule is that the president pardons those who have been convicted, or in the language of the law, ‘offenders,'” wrote Blander.

A pardon during legal proceedings is possible, according to the analysis, but is “rare and exceptional.”

During the 1984 Bus 300 affair, in which a pair of bound Palestinian terrorists were captured and executed following their failed hijacking of an intercity bus carrying 41 Israelis, president Chaim Herzog pardoned senior Shin Bet officials before their trial. The Supreme Court said it was legal but warned it was an “exceptional authority that must be exercised only as a safety valve.”

Wrote Blander, “Following the ruling, the attorney general’s directives established that ‘as a rule, the president deals only with requests concerning someone who has been convicted. Handling requests before conviction will occur only in rare cases.'”

“It should be noted that during a trial, the authority to stay criminal proceedings in exceptional circumstances lies with the attorney general,” wrote Blander. “Similarly, the authority to withdraw an indictment lies with the prosecution. Therefore, a pardon during trial, which would effectively terminate ongoing proceedings, constitutes interference in the independence of criminal prosecution.”