Benjamin Netanyahu has asked Israel’s president for a pardon, invoking the national interest. If this happens, the rule of law in Israel will collapse, just as it collapsed in America, after all charges against Trump were dropped merely because he became president.
The essence of the rule of law is legal supremacy, meaning that no one can stand above the law. There is no national interest greater than this. The national interest is the rule of law. No one is irreplaceable, only dictators believe that.
We must refer back to foundational principles such as Lon L. Fuller’s criteria, which define the Rule of Law as requiring that the law applies equally to everyone, that those exercising power are not above the law, and that legal certainty outweighs political goals.
Until now, Israel has been the only functioning rule-of-law democracy in the Middle East. Netanyahu’s illiberal ambitions have been eroding exactly this. If he is exempted even from the application of the law itself, Israel’s democratic character becomes fundamentally questionable, even if the president has constitutional power to grant pardons.
For those not driven by prejudice but genuinely curious about where such procedures lead, Max Weber’s theses on the modern state are recommended reading. He emphasizes the impersonal nature of authority, personality cults are the death of the modern state.
Or, conversely, Carl Schmitt – the jurist and theorist of the Nazi state – defined the „sovereign” as the one who decides on the exception, who makes himself the exception and authorizes his own deviation from the law. This is the antechamber of dictatorship, which Schmitt openly endorsed. Is this really the goal?
Pardons, in any case, are for convicted criminals. A pardon nullifies a sentence. Terminating legal proceedings is not a pardon, it is illegality, favoritism, and the end of the rule of law itself: the law does not apply equally; someone is placed above it.
Equality before the law is a cornerstone of modern constitutionalism, and it is embedded in Israel’s Basic Laws as well. Granting a pardon before a verdict would be an unconstitutional act of preferential treatment. This is the end of constitutional governance.
Citing Trump’s request that Netanyahu be pardoned is absurd and nonsensical. Trump has nothing to do with Israel’s judicial system; he is not (yet) world dictator, and he himself has already placed his own person above the law.
Brazil acted exemplarily when it rejected Trump’s attempt to interfere in its judicial process, one that convicted Bolsonaro for the same anti-state crimes for which Trump should also have been convicted. Israel should do the same.
It is not accidental that illiberal, far-right and fascist leaders around the world are without exception also ordinary criminals: fraudsters, thieves, liars, lawbreakers, from Putin to Orbán to Trump. Netanyahu belongs to this group as well, which is Israel’s tragedy and shame.
It is a bad sign that President Herzog did not immediately reject Netanyahu’s request, at least stating that a verdict must first be rendered before the question of a pardon can even arise. But it would not serve Israel’s national interest to treat Netanyahu differently from everyone else.
Especially striking is Netanyahu’s justification: „Continuing the trial will tear us apart from within at a time when Israel faces enormous challenges and with them great opportunities that require unity.”
National unity would be achieved if a politician who, according to the charges (and these are well-substantiated), has committed crimes and faces prosecution, stepped back from public life so that his personal interests do not divide the nation.
Netanyahu’s hunger for power is stronger than any expectation that he step aside for the sake of national unity and national interest. Instead, he demands to be absolved of the charges, placed above the law, if the nation wants unity.
But this does not restore unity, on the contrary. Those in Israel who want a rule-of-law state, where even the prime minister is not above the law, would experience Netanyahu’s exemption as a devastating blow. This serves only Netanyahu’s interests, no one else’s.
There is an even more serious dimension: to what extent did Netanyahu take his own criminal cases into account while directing the war in Gaza? Did he escalate the war to save himself? How many people died because of this?
How much did his criminal cases contribute to the mass killing of children, women and innocent civilians, thereby forcing Israel’s genuine friends (who condemn the killing) into the same camp as heavy-duty antisemites, to the point where distinguishing between them became almost impossible?
How is it a benefit that the far right has become Israel’s main „friend” and „protector”, the same far right that persecuted Jews throughout its history and paved the way for genocide? Their „friendship” is based solely on the fact that Netanyahu resembles them. They did not suddenly discover affection for the Jewish people.
How does it help Israel that the world’s fascists now „love” it, while democrats have been thrown into confusion, forced to voice their doubts? How healthy is it that anyone who wants to defend Israel must now fear being mistaken for an anti-Zionist far-right agitator?
How did this serve Israel’s national interest: the explosion of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment on a scale unseen in decades? And how much of this was driven by Netanyahu’s determination to make himself indispensable and derail his criminal proceedings?
How many died on both sides, simply so Netanyahu would not lose power, evade justice, and portray this as a “national interest”? It will take years before historians uncover the full truth.
But it is not in Israel’s interest that, without historical distance, this exact conviction is spreading worldwide, including among people who are not antisemites. Antisemites need no reason, they are unaffected by such nuances. It is Israel’s friends whose sense of justice has been shattered by this man.
If on top of all this he now receives a „pardon”, that will be the ultimate outrage. It will show – not for the first time – how dark the forces dominating the world truly are, and it will darken Israel itself, from which many expected moral clarity. It will deeply fracture the Jewish world as well, because this now reaches the level of identity.
Anyone unwilling to separate the historical, cultural and spiritual Israel from Netanyahu and everything he represents is forced into fanaticism, burying their head in the sand, dismissing every legitimate question and criticism as terrorism or antisemitism.
Even this very argument. But if we strip away ideological distractions, the formula is simple: a political leader who considers himself irreplaceable and the guarantor of national unity is claiming it is a national interest that he stand above the law.
If this were not about Israel, and not about Netanyahu, what would people say? Who is such a man? What would Carl Schmitt say about him? And Max Weber?
