Netanyahu Rejects Calls to Retire if Pardoned, Says Political Future Not Contingent on Ending Corruption Trial

By: David Avrushmi

In a pointed and unapologetic declaration that reverberated across Israel’s already-fractious political landscape, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he has no intention of retiring from public life even if he receives a presidential pardon in his long-running corruption trial. His comments, delivered in response to a reporter’s question during a press appearance in Jerusalem, immediately intensified debate over the unprecedented legal and constitutional terrain Israel is now entering.

According to Reuters report on Sunday, Netanyahu responded with a succinct but unequivocal “no” when asked whether a pardon from President Isaac Herzog would mark the end of his political career. It was a moment that laid bare Netanyahu’s strategic calculus: that he intends to remain the nation’s most dominant political force, regardless of judicial proceedings that have defined much of the past five years.

The prime minister’s stance also appeared to preempt arguments advanced by several opposition figures who insist that any form of pardon must require Netanyahu’s retirement from public office—an approach meant to prevent what they see as a dangerous precedent in which sitting leaders secure immunity while remaining in power. The Algemeiner noted in their report that these criticisms have grown sharper since Netanyahu’s legal team formally petitioned President Herzog last month, requesting clemency on the grounds that the ongoing trial prevents the prime minister from fully performing his duties.

Pardons in Israel are rare even under normal circumstances, but the prime minister’s request is extraordinary in its timing. As the Reuters report observed, Israeli presidents have historically granted clemency only after legal proceedings conclude and the accused has been convicted. There is no precedent for issuing a pardon mid-trial—let alone to a sitting prime minister in the midst of one of the most consequential corruption cases in the nation’s history.

Netanyahu faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in three separate cases, collectively known as Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000. He has repeatedly denied all accusations, calling the trial a “political witch hunt” orchestrated by partisan prosecutors and hostile media outlets. His lawyers argue that the government has suffered from Netanyahu’s constant need to appear in court, contending that a pardon would serve the national interest by allowing him to focus entirely on governance during a moment of global instability and regional military tension.

According to The Algemeiner report, the defense also maintains that Netanyahu still believes the trial—if concluded—would result in a full acquittal. This position reinforces their argument that granting clemency early would not be a subversion of justice but a practical measure to ensure governmental continuity.

The legal and political drama gained international intrigue after it became known that  President Trump had privately written to President Herzog, urging him to “consider favorably” a pardon for Netanyahu. That correspondence, confirmed by multiple Israeli officials speaking to Reuters, drew both criticism and praise—criticism for what many viewed as improper external pressure on Israel’s judiciary and praise from Netanyahu loyalists who see Trump’s intercession as an affirmation of the prime minister’s indispensability.

Trump’s message reflects the close political relationship he and Netanyahu cultivated during Trump’s presidency—one that reshaped U.S.–Israel ties through policies ranging from the Abraham Accords to the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Opposition lawmakers, however, reacted with alarm to the idea of clemency at this stage in the proceedings. Several leaders from Yesh Atid, Labor, and the National Unity party have argued that the only morally defensible pardon would require Netanyahu to admit guilt and retire permanently from political life. Anything short of that, they contend, would undermine judicial integrity and destabilize Israel’s constitutional framework.

Others have suggested that Netanyahu must first call early national elections—currently scheduled for October 2026—before any pardon could be considered legitimate. As one opposition figure told The Algemeiner, “A pardon that allows a sitting prime minister to remain in power while escaping judicial scrutiny is not clemency. It is capitulation.”

President Herzog, whose office has confirmed receipt of Netanyahu’s request, now finds himself in a position that no Israeli president has faced: weighing the domestic cohesion of a deeply divided nation against the political future of its longest-serving prime minister.

As the Reuters report emphasized, Herzog has given no indication that he is inclined to intervene at this stage. The president is known for his cautious approach, particularly on matters that risk deepening national polarization. But the pressures mounting around him are substantial—from international actors, political factions within Israel, and a public increasingly weary of political confrontation.

Complicating matters further is the broader geopolitical environment. Israel is navigating unprecedented regional instability, from ongoing security operations in Judea and Samaria to intensified military coordination with the United States following heightened threats from Iran and Hezbollah. As The Algemeiner has reported, Netanyahu’s allies argue that removing the uncertainty of the trial would strengthen Israel’s leadership posture at a time when clarity is vital.

Since the corruption indictments were announced, Israel has been locked in a political cycle defined by mistrust, stalemate, and repeated elections. Netanyahu’s trial has become the symbolic core of this national struggle—a conflict not only over legal guilt or innocence but over the nature of executive power, the independence of the judiciary, and the direction of Israeli democracy.

In this sense, Sunday’s emphatic “no” was more than a curt reply to a journalist. It was a reaffirmation that Netanyahu sees himself as inseparable from Israel’s political future. Far from contemplating a quiet retirement, the prime minister appears intent on continuing to shape Israeli policy, society, and security for years to come—regardless of the judicial storm that still hangs over him.

Herzog’s decision, whenever it comes, will almost certainly provoke backlash from one side of the political spectrum or the other. A refusal to consider a pardon may embolden Netanyahu’s critics, who hope the trial will conclude and potentially bar him from office. A willingness to explore clemency—particularly without conditions—would ignite fierce protests from those who view such a move as the erosion of judicial independence.

For now, the prime minister continues to project full confidence, insisting he will neither resign nor seek a plea deal. His political allies have framed the pardon request not as an escape from accountability, but as a necessary measure to ensure stable governance.

As the Reuters report noted, Israel’s legal apparatus has rarely, if ever, faced such a constitutional puzzle. And as The Algemeiner report emphasized, the stakes extend far beyond Netanyahu himself: the outcome may reshape Israeli legal precedent for generations to come.

One thing is certain: Netanyahu is not going anywhere. Whether the courts, the president, or the electorate will ultimately determine his fate remains the question now gripping the nation.