Why a Pardon for Netanyahu Would Endanger Israeli Democracy

As the legal proceedings against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drag on, a recurring whisper echoes through the corridors of the Knesset and the Israeli public sphere regarding the possibility of a pardon.

Whether in the form of a plea bargain that includes a suspension of proceedings, or a presidential pardon in exchange for his retirement from political life, the argument is always framed as an act of national healing.

Proponents suggest letting the man go so the country can finally breathe. While the desire to end the political gridlock and social polarization is understandable, granting Netanyahu a pardon, especially one that bypasses a definitive judicial verdict, would be a catastrophic error. It would not heal the wounds of the nation; it would infect them.

The bedrock of any liberal democracy is the principle that no person is above the law. This is not a cliché; it is the mechanism that prevents tyranny. If a Prime Minister accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust is allowed to bypass the justice system simply because of his political stature, the principle of equality is shattered. If Netanyahu is pardoned, the state can no longer justify prosecuting a mayor for embezzlement or a regular citizen for tax evasion. A pardon sends a clear message that justice in Israel is selective and that if you are powerful enough, the rules do not apply to you.

Moreover, for years Netanyahu and his allies have waged an aggressive campaign against the law enforcement agencies of Israel. The police investigators were labeled biased, the State Prosecutor was called a leftist plant, and the judges were accused of plotting a coup. A pardon would essentially validate these attacks. It would suggest that the legal system is indeed a political bazaar where justice is tradable. If the trial is stopped before a verdict is reached, the narrative that this was a witch hunt will be cemented in the minds of his supporters forever. To restore trust in the institutions, the judicial process must run its full course, resulting in either full exoneration or conviction.

The primary argument for a pardon is that it will end the polarization surrounding Netanyahu and unify the country, but this is a dangerous illusion. A pardon will not bring unity; it will deepen the cynicism of the citizenry. Half the country will feel that justice was subverted to save a single man, fueling resentment and distrust in the state for generations. True unity comes from a shared understanding of the rules of the game. Breaking those rules to save a leader does not build a bridge; it burns the foundation.

Finally, deterrence is a crucial component of criminal law, particularly regarding public corruption. If a leader knows that the worst case scenario for corruption is a comfortable retirement secured by a pardon, the barrier to corruption is lowered. Future Israeli leaders are watching. A pardon for Netanyahu establishes a precedent that the office of the Prime Minister serves as a sanctuary city for the corrupt. To ensure clean governance in the future, the consequences of corruption today must be absolute and unavoidable.

The trial of a sitting Prime Minister is undoubtedly a painful, ugly, and exhausting ordeal for a nation. But it is also a sign of strength. It proves that the institutions are functioning. To bypass this process via a pardon is to admit that the Israeli democracy is too weak to handle the truth. Israel does not need a deal to move forward. It needs justice. For the sake of the rule of law, historical truth, and the integrity of future leadership, Benjamin Netanyahu must not be pardoned. The law must speak.