Israeli President Herzog Holds Firm on Netanyahu Pardon Review Despite Trump’s Shaming Tactics

Israeli President Isaac Herzog has held firm on his commitment to proper legal review procedures for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pardon request, issuing a statement Thursday that directly addressed Donald Trump’s use of shaming tactics to pressure a decision.
Herzog’s office provided clarity on the status of the pardon application, explaining that the Ministry of Justice is currently engaged in a thorough legal analysis of the request according to all established procedures and constitutional requirements. The presidential statement made clear that Herzog has not reached any decision on whether to grant the pardon and emphasized that contrary to impressions created by Trump’s public remarks, the deliberative process is proceeding according to normal legal protocols, and any final determination will be based exclusively on legal considerations and Israeli law, without yielding to pressure from external or internal political forces.
The political and diplomatic situation became more contentious when Trump, during a press conference at the White House conducted while Netanyahu was visiting Washington for high-level diplomatic consultations, publicly attacked Herzog using unusually personal and harsh language. The former U.S. president declared that Herzog “should be ashamed of himself” for not immediately approving the pardon request and went significantly further by suggesting that ordinary Israeli citizens should publicly shame and condemn their president for his handling of this sensitive legal matter. Trump’s remarks represented a dramatic departure from conventional diplomatic norms and marked an extraordinary instance of direct American interference in the internal legal and governmental processes of a close allied nation.
Netanyahu currently confronts serious criminal allegations across three separate and active corruption prosecutions that have captivated Israeli public attention and dominated political discussions for several years. Two of these high-profile cases involve complex accusations that Netanyahu orchestrated elaborate quid pro quo arrangements and negotiations with prominent Israeli media organizations and news outlets, allegedly leveraging his position as prime minister and using governmental regulatory authority, policy decisions, and regulatory benefits to secure favorable, positive, and sympathetic news coverage of himself, his family members, and his administration’s policies and actions. The third criminal case involves more direct and personal allegations of bribery, personal enrichment, and corruption, with prosecutors presenting evidence and claims that Netanyahu systematically accepted more than $260,000 worth of extravagant luxury gifts and expensive items from billionaire associates, wealthy supporters, and business figures, including expensive cigars, premium champagne bottles, designer jewelry pieces, and various other high-end luxury goods and services, allegedly in exchange for political favors, governmental decisions, regulatory actions, policy changes, and other official actions that directly benefited these wealthy benefactors and advanced their business interests.
The unprecedented nature of Netanyahu’s legal situation has created a defining political crisis in modern Israeli history, as he became the first serving and incumbent prime minister ever to face criminal prosecution and stand trial while still holding office and exercising governmental authority. Since the formal legal proceedings and court trials commenced in 2019, Netanyahu has mounted an aggressive and sustained defense campaign, consistently and repeatedly characterizing all three prosecutions as a politically motivated “political trial” that has been orchestrated, coordinated, and manipulated by his political opponents, elements of the legal establishment, law enforcement officials, judicial authorities, and segments of the Israeli media establishment to undermine and delegitimize his democratically elected leadership and force his removal from office through judicial processes rather than through legitimate democratic electoral means. Although prosecutors initially brought four separate and distinct corruption charges against Netanyahu when the cases were first filed, one of these charges was subsequently dismissed by the courts during preliminary proceedings, leaving three substantial, serious, and active criminal cases that continue to proceed through the Israeli judicial system. The current international controversy, political debate, and diplomatic tension over a potential presidential pardon officially began when Trump delivered a high-profile and widely publicized speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in October, during which he publicly and directly addressed President Herzog by name, strongly urging and pressuring him to grant clemency and issue a formal pardon to Netanyahu, which subsequently prompted, encouraged, and motivated Netanyahu’s legal defense team to formally submit an official pardon request, application, and petition to Herzog’s presidential office for his review, consideration, and potential action.