Can the Israel president grant clench to neryanahu fit war crimes?
Executive summary
Israel’s president can grant pardons, but every major outlet reporting Netanyahu’s November 30, 2025 pardon request frames that power as constrained, rarely used before conviction and legally contested in the context of a sitting prime minister [1] [2] [3]. Legal scholars and opposition figures cited in coverage say a pre‑trial or conditional pardon for Netanyahu would be extraordinary and faces serious legal and political hurdles, including customary requirements such as admission of guilt that Netanyahu’s filings do not include [4] [3] [5].
1. What the president’s power actually is — ceremonial role with a real clemency power
Israel’s president is broadly described in reporting as a largely ceremonial office but one that retains a formal authority to grant pardons in “unusual circumstances,” and standard procedure sends pardon requests to the pardons department in the justice ministry and to the president’s legal adviser for recommendation [2] [1]. Reuters explains the mechanics: Herzog’s office will forward Netanyahu’s request to the pardons department to gather opinions, which will feed a legal adviser’s recommendation to the president [1].
2. The immediate facts about Netanyahu’s request
On Nov. 30, 2025 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally asked President Isaac Herzog for a pardon in his long-running corruption trial, arguing a pardon would help him govern and heal national divisions; Herzog’s office labeled the request “extraordinary” and transmitted it into the normal review process [6] [1]. Coverage across AP, NYT, CNN, Reuters and other outlets notes the request came after a public letter from U.S. President Donald Trump urging clemency [6] [7] [8].
3. Legal precedent and the Barzilai case — contested relevance
News reports point to a 1986 high court decision, Barzilai v Government of Israel, where a president issued a pre‑indictment pardon in exceptional circumstances; but scholars quoted in the press say that precedent does not clearly map to Netanyahu’s situation, particularly because earlier cases involved admissions of guilt and resignations that are absent here [4]. The Guardian and other outlets cite constitutional scholars warning that the Barzilai precedent is unlikely to straightforwardly justify a pre‑trial pardon for Netanyahu [4].
4. The missing elements in Netanyahu’s submission
Multiple outlets report the documents Netanyahu submitted did not contain an admission of guilt — a practice many legal commentators and political opponents view as a de facto requirement for clemency in politically fraught cases [3] [9]. Former lawyers and opponents argue a pardon without admission, remorse and political exit would undercut rule‑of‑law norms; those views are reported as influential in shaping public debate around the pardon [5] [9].
5. Political consequences and competing narratives
Supporters argue a pardon is in the “national interest” to end a divisive legal saga and allow the government to focus on security; critics say pre‑emptive pardons weaken democratic institutions and signal that leaders are above the law [10] [6] [11]. Reuters notes standard procedure will include consulting the justice ministry and other officials — but reporting also highlights that Netanyahu’s close allies hold key offices, a fact that increases political stakes and public scrutiny [1].
6. What the press says about likelihood and process
Media outlets uniformly describe the request as “extraordinary” and underscore both legal uncertainty and political backlash; they report the president is seeking legal opinions before acting and that pardons in Israel have typically followed conviction, not pre‑trial action — making a successful immediate pardon historically uncommon [1] [2] [3]. CNN and Reuters emphasize the rule‑of‑law concerns raised by legal scholars and civil society [7] [1].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention any final legal ruling or decision by President Herzog on this particular pardon request, nor do they document a clear legal consensus that a pardon for war‑crimes or any charges beyond the corruption counts in Netanyahu’s trial would follow the same pathway [1] [6]. Coverage focuses on the corruption indictment and the politics of clemency; available sources do not discuss a president’s ability to pardon for international crimes in this case or any ongoing war‑crimes adjudication related to Netanyahu [6] [1].
8. Bottom line for the original question
Under Israeli practice the president has formal pardoning power, but major outlets report that granting a pre‑trial or pre‑conviction pardon for Netanyahu would be extraordinary, legally contested, and politically explosive — especially because Netanyahu did not admit guilt and influential commentators say precedent is not straightforwardly applicable [2] [4] [3]. The sources show procedure (ministerial and legal advisories) will be followed; they do not report a precedent that makes such a pardon routine or guaranteed [1] [4].