Israel’s attorney-general, Gali Baharav-Miara, announced on 15 February that she has not yet reviewed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for a presidential pardon and that any examination will be conducted "according to standard procedures." The statement closes a procedural loop that now hands the matter to the legal office that traditionally advises the president on clemency, placing a key institutional gatekeeper at the centre of a politically charged decision.
Netanyahu was indicted in early 2020 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of public trust; the case began public hearings that May, making him the first sitting Israeli prime minister to face a judicial trial. In November 2025 he submitted a formal pardon plea to President Isaac Herzog, who has said he will consider the request only "in the best interests of the state and society" and that he would seek legal advice before deciding.
Under Israeli practice the president’s power to grant clemency is constrained and typically exercised after detailed legal review. The attorney-general’s opinion is influential: while not legally binding, it carries weight with the president and with the wider public as a signal of whether a pardon would conform with legal norms. Baharav-Miara’s pledge to apply standard procedures aims to project impartiality, but procedural formality will not by itself defuse the political dimensions of the case.
The request and its handling have domestic political implications far beyond the narrow legal question of clemency. A presidential pardon for a sitting prime minister accused of corruption would be unprecedented in recent Israeli history and risks deepening already sharp public divisions over rule of law and elite accountability. Conversely, a refusal could intensify tensions within Netanyahu’s political camp and among his supporters, who have in the past mobilised vigorously around perceived judicial overreach.
For international observers and allies, the episode is a litmus test of Israeli institutional resilience. The coming weeks will show whether legal institutions can retain perceived independence under intense political pressure and whether political actors can absorb a high-profile legal outcome without further destabilising the governing coalition. The attorney-general’s next steps — the scope and timing of her review and the legal reasoning she provides — will shape both the immediate decision and the longer-term public narrative about justice and politics in Israel.