In what might be the most critical moment in Israel’s political history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands on the brink of a judicial reckoning that could bring an end to his decades-long career. More than the potential fall of a politician, it could mark the end of a leader who has dominated public life for nearly three decades.
As the Israeli arena convulses with protests and bitter divisions, Netanyahu’s formal request for presidential clemency, submitted on 30 November, has caused a constitutional and political earthquake. It threatens to reshape the balance of power and revives a long-running debate over the limits of executive authority—and whether a prime minister can ever stand above the law.
The charges against him are grave. Case 4000, the Bezeq Walla affair, involves allegations of bribery and could carry a lengthy prison term. Case 2000 concerns negotiations with the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth for more positive coverage in exchange for curbing a rival newspaper. Case 1000 involves gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from wealthy businessmen. According to Israeli legal experts, a conviction in Case 4000 alone could result in five to ten years in prison. It would also bring a legal stigma, making any return to political life virtually impossible.
Netanyahu fears the courtroom. At 75 years of age, any lengthy sentence would spell the end of his political existence, destroy his legacy as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, and place his name among disgraced leaders such as Ehud Olmert. Unlike wars or political battles, the trial is beyond his control. He cannot attack judges as he does rivals, nor can he endlessly persuade the right-wing public that everything is a conspiracy.
Israel’s prosecutors are known for securing ‘state witness’ deals within the inner circles of power, and past cases have seen close associates break ranks. Netanyahu dreads that moment.
Trump’s intervention
This drama has not unfolded in isolation. It was amplified by US President Donald Trump’s intervention during his visit to the Knesset (Israeli parliament) on 13 October, when he voiced support for granting Netanyahu a pardon. The remarks ignited a fierce political storm, widely condemned as interference in Israel’s judiciary.
Subsequent pressure on Israeli President Isaac Herzog deepened the controversy and introduced an unprecedented international dimension, while thousands of Israelis poured into the streets to denounce the idea of a ‘personal pardon’, which they viewed as a direct threat to the essence of Israel’s democratic order.
The notion of clemency has surfaced just as the trial enters its decisive phase. Key witnesses have testified, judges are approaching their final assessment of the evidence, and judicial leaks suggest that Case 4000 is strong enough to secure a conviction. Some right-wing parties are even contemplating the ‘post-Netanyahu’ era. Israeli observers note that Trump’s words in the Knesset were not casual. His influence within Israel’s right is considerable, and his hints about a pardon have compelled Netanyahu to weigh the possibility with utmost seriousness.
What drew particular attention were the mass demonstrations in West Jerusalem against the prospect of a pardon. These protests reflected a democratic civic current that sees clemency as a blow to the rule of law. They are not confined to the left either. The protesters include segments of the religious middle class, highlighting the erosion of the prime minister’s social legitimacy. In their eyes, Netanyahu has come to embody the image of a monarch defying the law.
Furthermore, the public prosecution and judiciary have firmly rejected any attempt to turn the trial into a political bargaining chip, while elements of the secular right now view Netanyahu as an electoral liability and want him gone.
The power to pardon
The Israeli president holds one of the broadest pardon powers in parliamentary systems, yet is constrained by three factors. No pardon may be granted before the conclusion of a trial except under truly exceptional circumstances—a condition that the Supreme Court, the public, and the opposition will invoke forcefully against Netanyahu. The attorney general must also advise that clemency would not undermine the rule of law; otherwise, the president risks being seen as serving the ruling party and provoking a constitutional crisis. Any pardon, therefore, would not be simple; it would amount to a political and judicial bargain.
The power of pardon in Israel is enshrined in the Basic Law, but it has traditionally been exercised under strict conditions that uphold the separation of powers and preserve the presidency’s apolitical status. A request for clemency from a sitting prime minister still on trial for corruption is virtually unprecedented. The Basic Law itself stipulates that “no-one is above the law, including the prime minister”.
Legal experts in Israel argue that granting a pardon before conviction, or before the judicial process has run its course, poses fundamental problems. It would breach the integrity of justice by interfering in an incomplete trial, and erode public confidence in the judiciary, given that Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000—concerning bribery, fraud, and breach of trust—were accepted by the courts after years of investigation and are not frivolous. It would also redefine the president’s role as a political actor rather than a symbolic figure, in contradiction to his limited constitutional function.
For these reasons, most legal scholars contend that granting clemency at this stage would directly undermine judicial independence and set a precedent that future officials facing trial could exploit.
Between prison and survival
Netanyahu is acutely aware that his trial is both complex and protracted, and that the likelihood of conviction is substantial. Despite his insistence on a narrative of ‘political persecution’ and accusations against the ‘deep state’, the cache of documents, recordings, and testimony from state witnesses such as Nir Hefetz and Shlomo Filber render the case far more perilous than he publicly concedes. For Netanyahu, the real spectre is not prison, but a collapsed political legacy.
Should Netanyahu secure a pardon, his supporters would hail him a victor over conspiracy and institutional persecution. Such a narrative could provide him with significant electoral momentum and might even enhance his prospects in the next election, portraying him as a leader who ‘stood firm and prevailed’.
Such a triumph would not come without cost. Civil society and the middle class would perceive the prime minister as ‘above accountability’, while the opposition would portray such clemency as Netanyahu pardoning himself through manipulation.
