When a head of government asks to be pardoned before being convicted, a red flag should go up, not only in the courthouse, but in the hearts of the people. That’s where Israel stands today. Netanyahu, already the only sitting prime minister in the country’s history to undergo a corruption trial, has formally requested a pardon from Isaac Herzog, arguing that the drawn-out legal proceedings hinder his ability to govern and that clemency would serve the “national interest.”

But here’s the rub: he has not admitted wrongdoing, nor expressed remorse, and he shows no intention of stepping down. That’s like saying “I’m innocent, but pardon me just in case.” And in doing so, he risks turning a legal process into a political shortcut with consequences for everyone.

Why This Move Undermines More Than It Resolves

Justice must have meaning or it becomes just words.

A pardon is traditionally reserved for someone who has paid their debt to justice. Using clemency before a verdict — let alone without any admission of guilt — turns the pardon into a pardon-for-power, not pardon-for-redemption. That weakens the moral authority of the law itself. Legal watchers note this is extremely rare in Israel and granting it now could erode public faith in the idea that “no one is above the law.”

It sends the wrong message to future office-holders.

If a leader can expect pardons merely because he claims national interest, what’s to stop the next leader from using “security,” “unity,” or “crisis” as cover for bold — even corrupt — actions? This sets a dangerous precedent: power over principle.

It deepens public division when unity is the stated goal.

Netanyahu argues the trial divides Israel and distracts from governance. But many Israelis — opposition politicians, watchdog groups, and everyday citizens — already view the pardon request as a betrayal. Some even chanted “Pardon = Banana Republic” outside the president’s residence. The result could be even sharper polarization, less trust in government institutions, and more social fracture, quite the opposite of unity.

Strong Leadership Doesn’t Mean Above Accountability

I’m no stranger to the argument that a nation under strain needs dependable, uninterrupted leadership. With regional tensions, war, and security threats, a steady hand most certainly matters. But that very strength must be rooted in fairness, discipline, and respect for institutions, especially when those institutions protect liberties, ensure justice, and check power.

An executive who believes he’s above conviction — or above the courts — isn’t showing strength. He’s showing fear. A true leader trusts the system enough to let justice run its course, then either rules with a clean record or goes down with accountability.

As a conservative, I believe in strong governance and national security, but also in virtue. And virtue thrives on accountability.

To the Citizens, to the Institutions, to the World: This Moment Matters

If the pardon request is granted, it risks changing Israel permanently: not just its leadership, but its identity as a democracy respectful of law. If it is denied — or better yet, if the trial proceeds — that will reaffirm that justice still matters, even — especially — for the powerful.

Because in the end, a nation built on laws cannot survive long if those laws become optional when fame, power, or politics demand it. A strong Israel should stand tall not by ignoring its trials, but by facing them openly, fairly, and honorably.