Should Netanyahu Be Pardoned — and Is It Time to Move On?

Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for a presidential pardon comes as he faces one of the most consequential criminal proceedings in Israel’s history. He is charged in three major corruption cases: Case 1000, alleging that he and his wife received luxury gifts—cigars, champagne, and jewelry—from wealthy benefactors in exchange for political favors; Case 2000, accusing him of negotiating with the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth for favorable coverage in return for legislative support aimed at weakening a rival newspaper; and Case 4000, the most serious, alleging that as communications minister, he advanced regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the telecom giant Bezeq in exchange for positive coverage on its news site, Walla. 

Netanyahu denies all wrongdoing, insisting that the cases are political in nature and reflect an attempt to remove him through the courts rather than through elections. Nearly a decade after the first allegations surfaced, the trial has come to dominate Israel’s political landscape, drain public trust, and paralyze the country’s ability to move past its internal divisions. It is against this backdrop that Netanyahu has asked President Isaac Herzog for a pardon.

President Donald Trump added dramatic international weight to the debate by issuing a letter urging Herzog to pardon Netanyahu. In the letter, Trump wrote that while he “absolutely respects the independence of the Israeli justice system and its requirements,” he believes the case against Netanyahu is “a political, unjustified prosecution.” He praised Netanyahu as a leader who “has fought alongside me for a long time, including against the very tough adversary of Israel, Iran,” and then delivered his central appeal: “I hereby call on you to fully pardon Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been a formidable and decisive War Time Prime Minister, and is now leading Israel into a time of peace.” 

Trump argued that Israel has achieved “unprecedented successes” and is “keeping Hamas in check,” and therefore should not be distracted by years of litigation. He concluded that “it is time to let Bibi unite Israel by pardoning him and ending that lawfare once and for all.” The involvement of a sitting U.S. president elevated the matter from a domestic legal battle to an international point of pressure and symbolism.

Netanyahu’s own letter to President Herzog echoes many of the same themes. He argues that the ongoing trial has crippled the government’s ability to function at a moment when Israel faces profound security challenges and internal polarization. 

He contends that the proceedings have consumed national attention and placed the country in a sustained state of political paralysis. Netanyahu portrays the legal process as fundamentally compromised, shaped by institutional bias, media hostility, and prosecutorial overreach. He presents himself not as a defendant trying to escape accountability, but as a prime minister whose prosecution has become a proxy battlefield for broader political warfare. 

He frames the pardon as an act of national necessity—one that could restore unity, reduce social and political tension, and allow the government to refocus on diplomacy, governance, and national security. His refusal to admit guilt is deliberate: it reinforces his insistence that the charges were illegitimate from the outset.

After so many years, the central question is no longer simply whether Netanyahu is guilty or innocent. It is whether Israel can afford to continue living under the weight of a trial that has stretched across nearly a decade and shows no sign of producing clarity or closure. A judicial process that drags on for years undermines confidence in the justice system’s ability to deliver timely and fair outcomes. It leaves the country’s leadership perpetually distracted and weakens the government’s ability to respond effectively to crises. Public fatigue is palpable. The divisions hardened by the trial have not softened—they have only deepened. A conviction would ignite political upheaval; an acquittal would be dismissed by critics as institutional failure. No outcome appears capable of delivering the national reconciliation Israel urgently needs.

At this point, a pardon is not about absolving Netanyahu or diminishing the seriousness of the allegations. It is about recognizing that the trial has become a national burden with diminishing value. Israel faces immediate, serious challenges—from regional instability to internal cohesion—that cannot be adequately addressed while its political leadership remains consumed by a courtroom struggle that has overshadowed everything else. 

Ending the trial would not erase the allegations or rewrite history; it would simply allow the country to move forward from a chapter that has drained its energy, polarized its society, and paralyzed its leadership. Sometimes the law must make space for the practical needs of a nation. Even in the United States, the Department of Justice maintains the longstanding position that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted because doing so would cripple the functioning of the executive branch. And in Israel’s case, the irony is that after all these years of turmoil, even a conviction would likely not result in Netanyahu going to jail at all—given his age, the nature of the charges, and Israel’s sentencing patterns in political corruption cases. With that in mind, and with nearly a decade already consumed by this legal saga, it may finally be time to end this and allow Israel to focus on its future rather than its grievances. 

Lou Shapiro is a criminal defense attorney-certified specialist and legal analyst, but most importantly, makes the end-of-shul announcements at Adas Torah. He can be reached at LouisJShapiro@gmail.com.