The involvement of US President Donald Trump in the campaign to get President Isaac Herzog to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, for which he is standing trial in three separate cases, has drawn more attention to the pardon issue than it would have received if he had acted more conventionally.
In conventional international relations, the leader of any state is expected to avoid meddling in the internal affairs of other states. Intervening in the domestic legal travails of the leader or a prominent figure in a foreign state is considered to fall under the category of “it isn’t done,” even if the latter has sought such intervention, as seems to be the case regarding the issue of Trump and Netanyahu’s pardon.
The problem in Trump’s case is that he is intent on pooh-poohing most aspects of conventional international relations, including international law, international convention, and the institutional aspects of the post-World War II international order, of which the United States was the chief architect.
On three occasions since last June, Trump called for ending Netanyahu’s trial or giving him a pardon. On June 26, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account: “Bibi Netanyahu’s trial should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero, who has done so much for the State [of Israel].”
He followed by describing Netanyahu’s trial as a “witch hunt.” Former Supreme Court chief justice Aharon Barak, who in the past supported reaching a plea bargain with Netanyahu or pardoning him under certain strict conditions, stated at the time that Trump’s intervention was unprecedented and “very disturbing.”
The next two times Trump spoke on the issue, he approached Herzog directly. The first time was during his speech in the Knesset plenum on October 13, when he turned to Herzog, who was present, and said, “Mr. President, why don’t you pardon him (as he pointed to Netanyahu),” and received a burst of applause from members of the government, coalition MKs, and a few opposition MKs. The second time was in an official letter sent last Wednesday – a letter full of paradoxical statements and factual inaccuracies.
One of the paradoxes was the following: “While I absolutely respect the independence of the Israeli Justice System, and its requirements, I believe that this ‘case’ against Bibi... is a political, unjustified prosecution.”
One of the many factual inaccuracies was, “it is time to let Bibi unite Israel by pardoning him, and ending that ‘lawfare’ once and for all.”
However, it is not Netanyahu’s trial that prevents him from trying to heal the divisions in Israeli society. It is he himself who increases these divisions by means of the Likud’s “poison machine” directed against all critics of Netanyahu personally and his government.
Trump's motivation: justice or power?
His main motivating force seems to be his desire to stay in power at any cost, with the help of his coalition, and a policy of doing away with Israel’s liberal democracy and liberal legal system. Pardoning Netanyahu is more likely to encourage him to further divide society than to heal it.
If Netanyahu were to stop refusing to take responsibility for any of his political and personal lacunae and faux pas, to ask for a pardon himself or by means of a close relative (as the law prescribes), to agree to admit to at least some of the charges brought against him (especially within the framework of Case 1000), and to exit from public life – Herzog would gladly pardon him. But none of this is likely to happen, according to Netanyahu himself.
It is quite likely that Trump sincerely believes that Netanyahu is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and that pardoning him is an act of pure justice. However, we know of at least one recent case in which Trump demanded that charges be removed from a former foreign leader – former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who on September 12 was found guilty by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court on charges of plotting a military coup designed to keep him in power after he had lost the 2022 election to his left-wing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
One may recall that following the 2020 presidential election in the US, Trump was also accused (but never tried) of the violent attack on the Capitol that took place on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn the electoral victory of the Democratic candidate Joe Biden, which he believed to have been fraudulent.
At any rate, Trump reacted to the decision of the Brazilian court in July to prosecute Bolsonaro by announcing a 50% tariff on Brazilian exports to the US (the tariff was reduced to 40% the following month), and after Bolsonaro received a 27-year and three-month prison sentence, he accused the court of engaging in a “witch hunt.”
Whatever Trump believes or feels about Netanyahu, there is no doubt that his interest in a pardon for Netanyahu is based, at least in part, on his own ambition to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Since establishing a settlement between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an important part of his peace-making efforts around the world, and Trump believes that at this stage, without Netanyahu, this cannot be achieved, releasing Netanyahu from his trial and from the possibility that he might be found guilty if he is not pardoned, is of the highest importance to him.
At least at the moment, Trump seems to be deliberately ignoring the fact that, after all the hostages – alive and dead – will be returned to Israel, Netanyahu might decide not to move to the next stage of Trump’s 20-point settlement plan for the Gaza Strip, which – rightly or wrongly – Netanyahu views, in its current form, to be opposed to the most basic Israeli interests.
At this stage, most of the Israeli commentators seem to agree that the chances for Herzog deciding to pardon Netanyahu are at best meager, primarily because Netanyahu is unlikely to accept the most generous conditions Herzog is capable of offering him, without losing whatever respect and prestige he still possesses in the liberal/Left circles from which he emerged.
At the same time, it should be added that if Netanyahu’s trial will be allowed to linger on at its current snail pace and style, it is likely to last for at least another five years, and no matter how the trial will end, the damage this will cause to Israel’s already rickety legal system, and fractured society, is likely to be severe.
This consideration should not be taken lightly.
The writer has written journalistic and academic articles, as well as several books, on international relations, Zionism, Israeli politics, and parliamentarism. From 1994-2010, she worked in the Knesset Library and the Knesset Research and Information Center.