Israel’s attorney general, Gali Baharav‑Miara, announced on 15 February 2026 that she has not yet examined the clemency petition Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu submitted to President Isaac Herzog in November 2025. Baharav‑Miara said any review will be conducted strictly “in accordance with standard procedures,” signaling a legal, rather than immediate political, handling of a matter that has inflamed Israeli politics for years.
Netanyahu was indicted in early 2020 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of public trust, and later that year became the country’s first serving prime minister to stand trial. The criminal proceedings have shadowed his premiership and divided public opinion, with supporters decrying what they call a politicized prosecution and opponents insisting the law must run its course. His November 2025 plea for a pardon — submitted to the largely ceremonial but legally decisive office of the president — escalated a fraught constitutional debate about clemency, accountability and the separation of powers.
Under Israeli practice the president may grant pardons but typically acts on legal advice, and the attorney general plays a central advisory role. Baharav‑Miara’s declaration that she has not begun her review underscores that the formal legal channel remains in play: any recommendation she produces could shape President Herzog’s decision, and will be scrutinized for legal reasoning as well as its political consequences.
The timing and transparency of the review matter because a pardon decision would reverberate far beyond the courtroom. A grant of clemency for a sitting prime minister convicted or facing conviction would intensify already sharp domestic divisions, potentially mobilizing both Netanyahu’s supporters and his detractors. It would also set a precedent for how Israel’s institutions manage high‑stakes conflicts between elected officials and the judiciary, with implications for public trust in democratic checks and balances.
President Herzog has said he will decide only “from the standpoint of the best interests of the state and society,” and has sought legal counsel on how to proceed. That public positioning indicates he recognizes the political sensitivity and the need to ground any action in a defensible legal and civic rationale. The attorney general’s measured announcement keeps the process within technocratic bounds for now, but it does not reduce the political pressure that will build as the review proceeds.
Whatever the immediate outcome, the episode will be a test of institutional resilience. If Baharav‑Miara’s review leads to a recommendation that the president refuse clemency, Netanyahu’s opponents will claim vindication of the legal process; if it results in a permissive stance, critics will argue the legal system has been undercut. Either way, the decision will shape Israel’s political trajectory and public confidence in its democratic norms for years to come.