Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, currently standing trial for corruption, has formally requested a presidential pardon before the conclusion of legal proceedings, according to The Atlantic's staff writer Yair Rosenberg, who calls it an extraordinary move that raises significant questions about governance and political accountability in "Israel".

Rosenberg notes that the Israeli prime minister faces charges of accepting valuable gifts in exchange for political favors and using his position to pressure media executives for favorable coverage. Despite the ongoing legal process, The Atlantic writer adds, Netanyahu appealed to Israeli President Isaac Herzog to grant him a pardon, attempting to avoid a final court verdict. The request sparked criticism within "Israel", yet the wider implications of his appeal received little attention.

Netanyahu’s plea was carefully crafted to avoid admitting any wrongdoing. His aides were explicit: “The prime minister will not admit guilt.” In the official letter submitted by his lawyer Amit Hadad, and in a video released by Netanyahu himself, a subtle but revealing message emerged, one that acknowledged his inability to fully discharge the responsibilities of his office.

“Granting this request will allow the prime minister to devote all of his time, abilities, and energy to advancing Israel in these critical times,” Hadad wrote, implying that Netanyahu has been unable to do so while entangled in his trial. In the video message, Netanyahu stated, “I am required to testify three times a week. This is an impossible requirement that no other citizen in Israel is subjected to.” While maintaining his innocence and reiterating his intent to seek “full acquittal", Netanyahu inadvertently confirmed the core concern underlying the charges: that he is unfit to govern.

Read more: Pardon for power: Netanyahu to retreat on reform if given immunity

Admission without guilt: a political strategy

Netanyahu’s legal entanglements have coincided with multiple political and military crises, Rosenberg notes, despite "Israel" carrying out aggressions on multiple fronts, its head of government remained preoccupied with personal legal matters.

Rosenberg states that Netanyahu chose to remain in power rather than allowing someone else to take the position as prime minister, subordinating the national interest to his own political survival.

The ramifications of this decision have been far-reaching, according to The Atlantic writer. Following the formal opening of his trial in May 2020, several Israeli political figures, some of them once close to Netanyahu, publicly declared their refusal to serve under a prime minister under indictment. This led to the formation of a diverse coalition government in 2021, which temporarily ended Netanyahu’s premiership.

However, Rosenberg writes, by 2022, he returned to office with the backing of extremist factions that leveraged his vulnerability to extract political concessions.

Rosenberg highlights that as a "private citizen", Netanyahu would have had to face the judiciary without delay. As prime minister, however, he managed to slow proceedings, avoid court appearances under the pretext of official duties, and pressure the legal system to consider favorable terms.

The Atlantic writer says that Netanyahu's continued tenure relied on satisfying his coalition partners, many of whom hold extreme sectarian positions. This political arrangement turned "Israel’s" governance into one of transactional deals rather than public service.

Read more: 'Israel is spiraling' amid Gaza war, internal fractures: The Nation

National crisis overshadowed by personal agenda

In return for their support, far-right political parties were granted significant authority in the occupied West Bank. The resulting settler violence against Palestinians went largely unchecked.

Within "Israel", a push by Netanyahu’s allies to curtail judicial independence triggered widespread opposition and gave rise to the largest protest movement in the entity’s history, drawing hundreds of thousands into the streets over many months.

At the same time, Rosenberg notes that the Israeli government faced internal paralysis. Amid military operations and heightened tensions, the Israeli army struggled with manpower shortages. Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox coalition partners refused to support mandatory conscription, despite broad public opposition to such exemptions, including among Netanyahu’s own voter base. Still, Rosenberg states that Netanyahu opted to preserve these political alliances over addressing national security needs.

The war on Gaza, meanwhile, dragged on long after public opinion had shifted toward ending it. Netanyahu’s far-right allies openly advocated for the expulsion of Palestinians and the permanent settlement of the territory, prolonging the war until external actors, including US President Donald Trump, exerted pressure to bring it to an end.

In his video, Netanyahu declared, “My personal interest was, and remains, to continue the process until its end, until full acquittal. But the security and political reality, national interest, dictate otherwise.” In reality, his tenure since returning to office suggests the opposite: that personal interest has consistently taken precedence over the collective interest of the population.

Rather than stepping aside for the good of "Israel", Netanyahu has demanded that institutions bend to his needs, further deepening the internal fractures within the entity. His continued leadership, supported by factions holding disproportionate influence, has undermined democratic structures and left "Israel" more divided and unstable than at any point in recent history.