In Israel, the president’s clemency power is grounded in the Basic Law: The President of the State, which gives the president authority to “pardon offenders and lighten penalties by reducing or commuting them.”
Legally, any individual – or their authorized representative, or a first-degree relative – may submit a clemency request to the President’s Residence.
Once submitted, the request is transferred to the Pardons Department at the Justice Ministry, or to the Defense Ministry if the case involves military justice.
The ministry collects relevant documentation, including court rulings, prosecution and defense files, Israel Prison Service or military justice records, and any relevant medical or social circumstances.
After the review, the ministry issues a professional recommendation, which is sent back to the President’s Residence. The president’s legal adviser and team then review the full file before the president makes a decision.
Although the president is formally free to act contrary to the recommendation, in practice, presidents almost always follow it – a reflection of the clemency power’s design as a measure of mercy and public-interest discretion, rather than political intervention.
Presidential pardons only considered after full evaluation completed
According to the President’s Residence, pardons are considered only after a full evaluation by all relevant authorities – a process described as heavy, rigorous, and conditioned on the merits of each individual case.
Historically, this has meant that pardons tend to be granted in cases involving rehabilitation, humanitarian hardship, or extraordinary personal circumstances, often long after conviction or sentencing.
The clemency mechanism is not a shortcut to evade trial or punishment, but rather a legal safety valve: a way to correct or soften justice when the raw application of law may no longer serve fairness or public interest.
The most notable exception to these norms came in the 1986 Bus 300 affair, when President Chaim Herzog issued pre-indictment pardons to senior Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) officials implicated in the killing of two captured terrorists and the subsequent cover-up.
The decision established the legality of pretrial pardons in Israel, but it also sparked lasting controversy. Unlike the criminal trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Bus 300 affair did not receive a proper investigation.
Because the system depends on recommendations from justice authorities and a careful final decision by the president, the practical threshold for clemency remains high.
Simply having a trial, even a long or politically charged one, does not guarantee eligibility for a pardon – especially while proceedings are ongoing. The clemency power retains its character as a tool of last resort.