On Sunday, December 1, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a stunning move that shook the country’s political landscape: he formally requested a presidential pardon from President Isaac Herzog, seeking to end his five-year corruption trial. The request, both unprecedented and divisive, has ignited fierce debate across Israel’s political spectrum and raised pressing questions about justice, accountability, and the future of Israeli democracy.
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is currently facing three separate corruption cases—known as Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000—filed in 2019. These cases revolve around allegations of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The charges are serious: prosecutors claim that Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, accepted nearly $200,000 in luxury gifts from wealthy businessmen in exchange for political favors (Case 1000), negotiated favorable media coverage with the owner of a major newspaper in return for legislative support (Case 2000), and granted regulatory benefits to a telecommunications giant in exchange for positive press (Case 4000).
According to The Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu’s request for a pardon was submitted directly to President Herzog and included a reference to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s earlier appeal to Herzog on Netanyahu’s behalf. Trump, a longtime ally, had written to Herzog on November 12, 2025, urging him to grant Netanyahu a full pardon. In his own televised video statement, Netanyahu argued, “The ongoing trial is tearing us apart from within, fueling fierce disagreements and deepening divisions.” He insisted that ending the trial would “help lower tensions and promote reconciliation our country so desperately needs.”
Netanyahu’s legal troubles have dominated headlines for years, but the timing and substance of his pardon request have made this moment especially fraught. As Yedioth Ahronoth reported, the request is “unusual and carries significant implications,” since presidential pardons in Israel are rarely granted before a conviction and almost never while a trial is still ongoing. Typically, pardons come only after a guilty verdict, often in exchange for an admission of guilt or a resignation from public office. Netanyahu, however, has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and made no such admission in his 111-page request. Instead, he continues to claim the charges are the result of a politically orchestrated “witch-hunt” by his rivals and the media.
Opposition leaders were quick to condemn the move. Yair Lapid, Israel’s opposition leader, declared in a video statement, “You cannot grant him a pardon without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse, and an immediate retirement from political life.” Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett echoed this sentiment, stating on social media that he would only support a pardon if it included Netanyahu’s “dignified withdrawal from political life alongside the end of the trial.”
Legally, however, the situation is less clear-cut. Dana Blander, a research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, wrote in a position paper that an admission of guilt is not required for a presidential pardon in Israel. The law grants the president broad discretion, and while Herzog is expected to consider recommendations from the Ministry of Justice’s pardons department, he is not bound by them. As The Associated Press quoted Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, “There is no assumption of responsibility… this might project a problematic message to all public figures and to what our public norms might look like.”
The process for considering the pardon is now underway. The request will be reviewed by the Ministry of Justice’s pardons department, which will send its opinion to Herzog’s office. Herzog himself, while a former political rival of Netanyahu, has maintained a good working relationship with the prime minister. On Monday, he issued a statement acknowledging the gravity of the situation: “It is clear to me that the issue of the pardon is shaking many people in the country; it will be handled in the best possible way.” Herzog stressed that he would “consider solely the best interests of the State of Israel and Israeli society.”
Public reaction has been swift and passionate. On Sunday night, protesters gathered outside Herzog’s residence in Tel Aviv to voice their opposition to the pardon request. Many Israelis, including opposition politicians such as Naama Lazimi, joined the demonstration, arguing that a pardon would undermine the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent. Legal experts have warned that granting a pardon before a conviction could spark a political and constitutional crisis, potentially ending up before Israel’s Supreme Court.
The details of the cases themselves are complex. In Case 1000, dubbed the “Gifts Affair,” Netanyahu and his wife allegedly received expensive gifts—including champagne and cigars—from Israeli Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer. In return, Netanyahu is accused of lobbying U.S. officials to secure a visa for Milchan and advancing tax legislation that could benefit both businessmen. In Case 2000, Netanyahu allegedly discussed a deal with newspaper publisher Aron Mozes to receive favorable coverage from Yedioth Ahronoth in exchange for supporting legislation to limit the circulation of a rival paper. Case 4000, the “Bezeq affair,” centers on claims that Netanyahu, while serving as communications minister, provided regulatory benefits to Bezeq’s owner, Shaul Elovitch, in return for positive coverage on the Walla news site.
Netanyahu’s supporters argue that the charges are overblown and politically motivated. His coalition partners have backed the pardon request, insisting it is necessary to bring stability to the country. Critics, however, claim that Netanyahu’s efforts to avoid prosecution—including attempts to overhaul the judiciary and limit the Supreme Court’s powers—are eroding Israeli democracy. As Israel Hayom noted, the pardon request “is clearly provoking debate and is deeply unsettling for many people in the country, across different communities.”
The context is further complicated by Israel’s history: since 1996, every Israeli prime minister has faced corruption investigations, though only Ehud Olmert was convicted and imprisoned. The last time a pre-trial pardon was granted was forty years ago, when then-President Chaim Herzog pardoned Shin Bet officials involved in a cover-up—an act that was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
Netanyahu’s trial has been repeatedly delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, political gridlock, and motions by his legal team citing national security concerns. With another election looming in autumn 2026—though it could be called sooner depending on political developments—the outcome of this pardon request could shape not only Netanyahu’s fate but the future of Israeli politics for years to come.
President Herzog now faces a momentous decision, one that will test the resilience of Israel’s legal and political institutions. All eyes remain on Jerusalem as the country awaits his verdict, knowing that whatever he decides will leave a lasting mark on the nation’s history.
