Netanyahu Seeks Pardon - with Amit Segal and Nadav Eyal

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Episode: "Netanyahu Seeks Pardon" — with Amit Segal and Nadav Eyal
Date: December 1, 2025
Description:
An in-depth discussion on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s formal request for a presidential pardon in his long-running corruption trial, the unprecedented political and legal implications of such a move, and how this development reflects and impacts Israeli society and politics. Dan Senor is joined by Israeli journalists Amit Segal and Nadav Eyal.

---

Main Theme

The episode dives into Netanyahu’s unprecedented request for a presidential pardon while still in office, examining its legal, political, and societal ramifications. Central to the episode are the stakes for Israeli democracy, the legacy of the country’s leadership, and the deep divisions this moment illustrates.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Netanyahu's Pardon Request: What Does It Mean?

• Background:

  • On Nov 30, 2025, Netanyahu formally requested a pardon from President Isaac Herzog regarding his ongoing corruption trial ([00:50]-[03:00]).
  • The request was made via a lengthy letter by his lawyer, stressing the need to "mend rifts" in society and claiming a pardon would let him focus on national interests. It notably contained no apology, admission of guilt, or promise to step down from politics ([00:50]-[01:50]).
  • Context: The request comes shortly after former President Trump publicly called for the same ([01:20]).

• Legal Nuance:

  • Nadav Eyal elaborates that Netanyahu’s personal letter to the president doesn’t directly ask for a pardon or amnesty—these terms are omitted. Instead, it hints the judicial overhaul would be dropped if the legal case disappears, suggesting the overhaul was a bargaining chip ([02:56]-[04:45]).
    • Quote:

      “If you close the case against me … the judicial overhaul is over and done with.” — Nadav Eyal ([03:30])

• Negotiation Dynamics:

  • Amit Segal argues this is a shift from earlier stages of the trial, where resignation might have traded for clemency. Now Netanyahu seeks a pardon without admission, apology, or leaving office—testing Israeli political culture ([04:54]-[07:01]).
    • Quote:

      “Maybe the condition would be, let’s set a date for your resignation. Let’s end this discourse and fights about the judicial reform. That’s why I think that Herzog’s response would be: ‘yes, but…’” — Amit Segal ([06:34])

---

2. Presidential Powers and Israeli Precedents

• Herzog’s Constitutional Role:

  • The president can pardon “offenders”—those convicted or who admit guilt. There’s ambiguity if this applies to ongoing trials, but precedent exists ([07:21]-[08:17]).

• Historical Parallel: The Bus 300 Affair

  • In the 1980s, President Chaim Herzog (current president’s father) pardoned Shin Bet (security) officials before trial for actions in the Bus 300 affair, which the Supreme Court ultimately approved, believing prosecution would damage the country ([08:17]-[10:40]).
    • Memorable Moment:

      “Two cases in which the president from the Herzog family believed that the public interest demands ending the legal issue in order to save the country.” — Amit Segal ([09:30])

• Uniqueness of Netanyahu’s Case:

  • Israel has jailed former presidents and PMs for crimes (e.g., Olmert, Katzav), but a pardon for a sitting leader without resignation or admission is unprecedented ([11:19]-[13:18]).

---

3. Public, Political, and Legal Debate

• Is this a ‘Bargain’ for Judicial Reform?

  • Debate whether Netanyahu is using the case as leverage to kill judicial reforms (appeasing opposition) or, conversely, as leverage to sustain them for his supporters ([13:33]-[14:25]).
    • Quote:

      “Netanyahu is going on a very narrow bridge. He tries both to convince President Herzog to give him a pardon and … to convince his supporters from the right wing that he hadn’t given up any of his claims against the judicial reform.” — Amit Segal ([13:54])

• Legal Process and Delays:

  • Discussion about why the case is stalled for so long—blame on both Netanyahu’s delaying tactics and the prosecutors’ approach ([14:25]-[18:35]).
  • Amit claims the trial’s endlessness is tearing Israeli society apart, linking the national divide to security failures.
    • Quote:

      “I personally believe that the October 7 massacre emanated directly from the fight in Israel that rendered Israel’s political system … [into] a culture war, a religion war...” — Amit Segal ([17:05])

---

4. Comparison with Past Political Scandals

• Olmert, Rabin, and Others:

  • Contrast to ex-PM Olmert’s quick resignation under pressure, lack of loyal base, and eventual conviction. Rabin resigned over an illegal bank account with a trivial sum ([19:40]-[20:52]).
  • Netanyahu’s unique political base allows him to survive legal assaults much longer ([20:52]-[23:32]).

• Trial Strength:

  • Dan Senor raises doubts with Israeli legal experts about whether the cases are “slam dunks,” especially for removing a sitting PM ([22:17]-[23:32]).
  • Nadav notes at least one case ("Case 1000") has clear facts; others are less airtight.

• Prosecutorial Overreach?:

  • Amit argues the state erred in testing new legal precedent on a sitting PM, thus dragging the country into endless turmoil ([26:35]-[28:13]).

    • Quote:

      “You do not try to create legal precedents when it’s the Prime Minister, when you take the country for a rendezvous that might last for years.” — Amit Segal ([26:48])

---

5. How Netanyahu Polarizes Israeli Politics

• Why Won’t Other Parties Join Bibi?

  • Amit points to the “criminal investigations dividing line” since 2016 as the moment parties, even centrists like Gantz, refused to join Netanyahu, deepening societal cleavage ([32:46]-[33:41]).

• Nadav pushes back:

  • The opposition’s refusal to sit with Netanyahu is less about a “religion” and more voters simply having enough—a democratic mechanism ([35:12]-[37:05]).

    • Quote:

      “It’s not about a crusade about the man personally. It’s about the voters. They want to get elected and the voters don’t like him because he’s been there forever and… because he’s probably guilty, at least with some of the charges.” — Nadav Eyal ([37:35])

• Amit laments system breakdown:

  • The Netanyahu focus has sucked all ideological oxygen from politics, damaging both left and right and paralyzing alternatives ([38:33]-[40:33]).

---

6. Political Forecast: What Happens Next?

• Herzog’s Choice is Lose-Lose:

  • Nadav predicts that because Herzog cannot win with either choice—granting a pardon will appear like caving to Netanyahu, refusing will appear as persecution—Netanyahu will weaponize either outcome for political gain ([46:03]-[48:25]).
    • Quote:

      “It’s the tragedy of Bouji Herzog … he’s now faced with a binary choice…he’ll be immediately cast by half the country, probably more … as someone who caved into Netanyahu.” — Nadav Eyal ([46:03])

• Will This Shape the Next Election?

  • Both guests agree the issue will further entrench positions but may not change core political dynamics, as the Israeli divide is now less about substance and more about “yes Bibi / no Bibi” ([45:22]-[48:41]).
  • Nadav notes Netanyahu benefits from shifting discourse to his legal fight, away from unpopular moves (like the Ultra-Orthodox military exemption bill), and that this maneuver serves as “super glue” to his base ([40:42]-[43:28]).

---

Notable Quotes and Moments

• Netanyahu’s Gambit:

  “If you close the case against me … the judicial overhaul is over and done with.” — (Eyal summarizing Netanyahu's hint, [03:30])

• On Israeli Legal Precedent:

  "Those were two cases in which the president from the Herzog family believed that the public interest demands ending the legal issue in order to save the country.” — Amit Segal ([09:30])

• Amit on the price of endless trial:

  “We can’t allow ourselves as a country to actually reach to 2031 before we have the final verdict from the Supreme Court.” — Amit Segal ([16:10])

• Nadav on the opposition’s stance:

  "It’s not about a crusade about the man personally. … the voters don’t like him because he’s been there forever." ([37:35])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Netanyahu’s Pardon Request Revealed: [00:50]–[04:45]
• Israel’s Pardon Precedent (Bus 300): [08:17]–[10:40]
• Why the Case Takes So Long: [14:25]–[18:35]
• Comparing Netanyahu, Olmert, Rabin: [19:40]–[23:32]
• Has the Trial Destroyed Politics? [38:33]–[40:33]
• Political Predictions & Herzog’s Dilemma: [40:33]–[48:25]

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a rare, behind-the-scenes look into how Netanyahu’s legal troubles are reshaping not only his own political prospects but the structure and cohesion of Israeli democracy. The discussion is vibrant, detailed, and reflects the deep divides — and the exhaustion — within Israeli society as the country faces yet another pivotal and uncharted political moment.

---

Panelists’ Final Thoughts:

• If President Herzog pardons Netanyahu, it will deepen divisions but may not break the political stalemate.
• If he refuses, Netanyahu could exploit this as further evidence of "the witch hunt" against him.
• Ultimately, this crossroads exposes the tension between Israel’s institutions, its rule of law, and the extraordinary staying power of its most polarizing leader.

---

Transcript

[A]

Foreign you are listening to an art media podcast. If Netanyahu is saying I'm going to kill the judicial overhaul, even if he's saying this off the record, if you give me a pardon, that means that the judicial overhaul that he went through after he was indicted was only a bargaining chip to get to this point.

[B]

I don't think Nadav Amit Dan and the State of Israel has another six years to spend on this. And I think it's time to take the p kill and in order not to puke and to actually end this trial once and for all.

[C]

It's 3pm on Sunday, November 30 here in New York City. It is 10pm on Sunday, Nov. 30 in Israel where Israelis are winding down their day and processing a pretty newsy day Today, Sunday, President Isaac Herzog received a formal request from Prime Minister Netanyahu for a pardon in his years long corruption trial. The documents included a 111 page letter written by Netanyahu's lawyer Amit Haddad, in which he argued that a pardon would allow the Prime Minister to focus squarely on advancing Israel's interest and would, quote, mend rifts between different sectors of the public. Notably, Netanyahu's letter does not include an apology or admission of guilt or any offer to step away from elected politics. This development comes just over two weeks after President Trump directly requested of Herzog that he pardon the Prime Minister, referring to Netanyahu's trial as a, quote, political unjustifiable prosecution. As expected, Netanyahu's request has elicited fierce criticism from opposition figures. President Herzog issued an official response stating, quote, after receiving all the relevant opinions, the President will responsibly and sincerely consider the request close quote. We now await the President's final decision which could take weeks to unpack. Netanyahu's request for a pardon and the implications. We are joined by two of the best source journalists in Israel, our media contributors, Nadava Yel and Amit Segal. A meat and a dove. I will start by saying that we have all been waiting for or thinking about this next year before Israeli elections as the the referendum, the capital T in the referendum on Netanyahu. But it may be arriving actually sooner with this decision over a pardon. And I want to start with you, Nadav. You are on vacation. If people are watching this, you are not your typical spot. We will leave it as an undisclosed location. But you're following things closely. What's your initial response to this development?

[A]

What Netanyahu is actually at Least hinting to in the letter that he himself sent. And there are two different. As you said, Dan, there are two different documents here. One document is the document that was sent by his lawyer, and another document is the letter that he sent to the President of Israel. In that letter that he sent to the president, there is actually no indictment, and there is no request for a pardon or an amnesty of any sort. The word pardon or amnesty is simply is. But if you actually read what Netanyahu is saying, and it's a very important hint if this case will close, I'll be able to focus on issues like the Israeli media and the judicial system. Now, why would Netanyahu even write that in a letter? What he's actually saying there, at least hinting is if you close down the case against me, if you let me off the hook of my legal troubles, the judicial overhaul is over and done with. And the law that is going to pass the Knesset, which will actually reform the media market in Israel in a way that many people interpret as actually giving the government much more control over commercial media, independent media that would also die. This is the undercurrent. I'm also hearing this from Likud ministers. They're saying the same thing, actually, what Netanyahu is saying, you want this to go away? It begins with a pardon. Now, I'm not sure that everyone who supports Netanyahu will back this interpretation, this hint, but it's definitely there in the letter. So Netanyahu wanted us to at least air the possibility that this is what he's looking for.

[C]

Amit, your thoughts both specifically on that particular point that Nadav is raising there at the end and just more broadly your reactions.

[B]

So four years ago, Netanyahu's opponents had their best shot ever, forcing Netanyahu to resign because there was a deal on the table, a plea deal between Netanyahu and the attorney General back then, Mandelblitz, according to which Netanyahu was to resign and the attorney General was to actually let him get away with it, ending the trial with no punishment. However, many people were against it. But the most significant opposition came from the Center Left coalition. The main sentiment was Netanyahu is part of the past. Bennett and Lapid are here for the next three and a half years. There is no point to actually let Netanyahu go, even if he resigns from politics because we want to see him in jail. The outcome was that this quid pro quo ended with nothing. Eight months later, Netanyahu was reelected in yet another referendum. About Netanyahu this is the number who counts. And now they meet a very different deal. The deal no longer demands the resigning of Netanyahu. But even if you take the staunchest position towards Netanyahu admitting the facts of the case, but it's no longer about ending his political career, President Herzog is now considering giving Netanyahu a presidential pardon in return neither for resigning nor for pleading guilty. But maybe if he agrees, as Nadav just mentioned, to end the judicial reform, to moderate it, to stop trying to shut the IAF radio, who knows? So Netanyahu comes in better terms and he wants to buy the risks. As for now, the price that he offers to buy the risks at is 0. All he said was, you can end the trial. I guess President Herzog is going to make some conditions. Maybe the condition would be, let's set a date for your resignation. Let's end all this discourse in fights about the judicial reform. That's why I think that Herzog's response would be, yes, but.

[C]

Okay, so much to unpack here. So, Nadav, first, what authority does the President of Israel? Leave Bouji Herzog out of this for a moment. Just the President of Israel has. Because so many of these kinds of laws in Israel, I sometimes feel like the Israeli system is kind of making it up as it goes along. And this feels like one of those just looking at the law, what authority does the President have?

[A]

The law says, and I'm going to quote the exact part of the Israeli Basic Law as to the President of Israel. The President of the state holds the authority to pardon offenders and to reduce or commute their sentences. That's it then. Okay, so this sounds like an absolute authority of the President to do whatever he wants in terms of pardoning. Very much. Very close to what the President of the United States can do. However, unlike in the us that clause in the law says specifically that he holds the authority to pardon offenders. And of course, in order to be an offender, you need to get a verdict in a court of law. Allegedly. Now, we can't speak about this entire legal affairs without talking about the 300 bus story or scandal.

[B]

And it's maybe the most dramatic legal event till the Netanyahu trial. It was called the 300 bus scandal. In 1984-1996, a group of Shin Bet fighters killed two terrorists who tried to kidnap the bus number 300 near Ashkelon in southern Israel.

[C]

And just to be clear, they killed them after they had captured them. That was the scandal. Right?

[B]

They claimed it happened during the attempt to actually release the passengers. But a picture taken by a newspaper photojournalist found out that they were alive once the kidnapping had already ended. So they claimed that the IDF killed them and it was found out that they lied. And then in order to save the need for the Shin Bet to go into trial, the entire senior leadership of the Shin Bet, President Herzog, the father of the current president, pardoned the senior figures of the Shin Bet in return for resignation prior to the trial. And the Supreme Court actually approved this decision in a 4 to 3 decision.

[C]

The pardon was for the leaders of the Shin Bet.

[B]

Yes, those who committed the crime and those who approved it, which is important.

[C]

Because it wasn't just some mid level operatives that were pardoned. It was also senior, it was senior officials.

[B]

It went all the way up. It began with the officer who killed with his bare hands and stones the terrorists, and it ended up with the head of the Shin Bet who lied and tried to actually cover it. Now, here is the thing. There are many similarities and many things that are different. The different things are, for instance, that they murdered two Palestinians, two terrorists, and Netanyahu didn't murder anyone. On the other hand, they admitted at least the facts and some of them took responsibility and Netanyahu didn't do it. But the common things are the two. Those were two cases in which the president from the Herzog family believed that the public interest demands ending the legal issue in order to save the country. President Herzog, the father, believed that it would cause a permanent damage for the Shin Bet. And President Herzog I believes that this trial is causing a permanent damage for the State of Israel. Those are the similarities and the differences between the two cases.

[C]

This is a little confusing to our listeners, I just want to say. So President Chaim Herzog, who's the current president's father, as Amit said, was present from 83 to 93, 1983 to 1993. And I think when the bus 300 affair occurred, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who is the Likud successor to Menachem Begin, was prime Minister during the foiled terror attack. And then the quote, unquote, cover up. But the prime minister who was in power when the pardon was orchestrated was Shimon Peres. Was Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Right.

[A]

It was a national unity government. So it was an agreement. Even what Shamir did. It doesn't matter who was the prime minister in that sense, that it was a coalition government. It was a different time.

[C]

Meaning they both supported it.

[A]

Oh, absolutely. They both wanted this to go away. And what you and Amit just spoke about, about admitting the facts is actually where this thing with Netanyahu is going. As Amit mentioned at the beginning, so Netanyahu at the past, like a year or two years ago. And as far as the Israeli opposition is concerned now, the question is, will you retire for your cases to go away? Very few people from the mainstream, even opposition in Israel, think that he's going to serve time in jail. But they're saying, if you want this to go away, you need to plead guilty. You need to get some sort of a plea deal or even a pardon after you plead guilty, because you're not an offender. You can't get it. And as Amit said, you didn't admit the facts. These opposition figures are saying right now, talk about the retirement of Netanyahu, what Netanyahu is saying, no, let's talk about the phrases I will use in which I admit parts of the facts, so it will count as though I took some responsibility and the president will be able to pardon me. In other words, he's talking about exchanging words for a pardon. Now, in Israel, we should say that we had a prime minister that went to jail for corruption charges, Yehudah, his finance minister, Kirzhun, that went to jail. We had the president, Moshe Kotzav, that went to jail for rape. For Netanyahu to get this, whatever people think about the charges against him, whatever they think about Netanyahu personally and his contribution or his responsibility for Aktorosemi, it doesn't matter. For Netanyahu to get this is highly extraordinary in Israeli political story, right? Everything is extraordinary. But this is not how the Israeli system usually treats people who are considered to be offenders or are standing to trial. The cleanest way to look at it would be for one side to argue, hey, all you wanted is Netanyahu to retire. So you're using. You're weaponizing the judicial system, right? But if Netanyahu is saying, I'm gonna kill the judicial overhaul, even if he's saying this off the record, if you give me a pardon, that means that the judicial overhaul that went through after he was indicted was only a bargaining chip. To get to this point, Nadav, I.

[B]

Would like to add to this because first of all, that's exactly how I read this sentence in Netanyahu's letter. But from speaking to his close entourage, he claimed exactly the other way around, that it would enable him to keep legislating the judicial reform. I don't know how it is supposed to be convincing or to tempt what does that mean?

[C]

I mean, explain what you mean by that.

[B]

Netanyahu is going on a very narrow bridge. He tries both to convince President Herzog to give him a pardon and exactly as Nadav said, to convince his supporters from the right wing that he hadn't given up any of his claims against the judicial reform. Because people say, listen, you convinced us that there is nothing in this trial, so why do you need a pardon? I mean, you can just get acquitted in the trial. Why would you try to have some shortcuts?

[A]

What you just said is really important. Netanyahu kept on saying before the trial began, all I want is that it is for the trial to happen so I can prove my innocence and give me the time. And then he said also when this was brought to the Supreme Court, that he can't be a prime minister and stand trial. And according to Israeli standard procedure and rulings, ministers who stand for trial for offenses that are less severe than the ones that Netanyahu is being accused at, at three different cases, they can't be ministers in the government of Israel.

[B]

Yes, but from a constitutional perspective, once the prime minister is forced to resign, it necessarily means that the entire government collapses.

[A]

What Amid just said is true, that there is a specific clause in the law as to a prime minister and he can keep on his position while being indicted. And it's the reason that Amit just gave. But that wasn't the question. And for me, Israel's original sin, legally speaking of the Supreme Court, was not that the Supreme Court didn't say, you need to resign, but the Supreme Court said, you can assemble a government. You can receive the mandate from the President of Israel to assemble a government while the President knows, and it was Herzog and the Supreme Court knows that the man is indicted. Now Netanyahu, just to drive it back home, said, there is no problem that I do both. I can be the prime minister of Israel, a highly demanding job, and I can perform in court every day because I have special powers. He used this expression, if I'm not mistaken, I can do everything. I'm overqualified to do both these days. His argument is, it's impossible. I can't perform in court every day, I can't come, and so forth.

[B]

I think that the worst sin of the Supreme Court is the attempt to even consider taking the millions of Israeli votes and say, no, you can't have the prime minister that you wish to have, because we decide otherwise. There isn't a single thing in the Israeli law that enables the Supreme Court even to discuss the opportunity or the option not to let Netanyahu to actually form a coalition once he got the support of 61 Knesset members, exactly as the law demands. So this is one thing Nadav touches, the very essence of it. It's not Netanyahu in a criminal case. It's something way bigger than this. Because even if we put aside the criminal indictments against Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is something way bigger about the relationship between the judicial system and the political aren. I want to give you an example because I have an opinion about it and Nadav has, and I guess we don't share the same opinion. However, I think after 10 and a half years, time's up for this thing. We can't allow ourselves as a country to actually reach to 2031 before we have the final verdict from the Supreme Court. And this is the current assumption in Israel, it's going to take yet another five to six years before the Supreme Court is to give the final verdict. Now, I am quite convinced that Netanyahu's investigation was flawed, that there was some sort of conspiracy into it, that there were illegal procedures taken. And Nadav is utterly convinced, I'm sure, that Netanyahu might be guilty and that no one asks for pardon if he feels innocent. However, I don't think Nadav, Amit Dan and the State of Israel has another six years to spend on this. And I think it's time to take the time pill in order not to puke and to actually end this trial once and for all. And I'm open for every opportunity because I personally believe that the October 7 massacre emanated directly from the fight in Israel that rendered Israel's political system from yet another political system in which you have coalition and opposition to a cultural war, a religion war, between the baby derangement syndrome people and the only baby syndrome. And we must put the end once and for all for this.

[C]

Okay, let's take a break to hear a word from our sponsor. You've heard me say it before. For so many, the vibrancy of Jewish life today is thanks to Jewish Camp. It's one of the most powerful ways to build Jewish identity, belonging and leadership. Parents tell us all the time camp made their kids proud to be Jewish and confident in who they are. What you might not know is that foundation for Jewish Camp helps make that possible. Each summer, foundation for Jewish camp supports over 300 day and overnight camps, home to nearly 190,000 campers and young adult staff. They envision a world where every Jewish child can access an exceptional Jewish camp experience. Go to jewishcamp.org call me back to learn more and become a champion of Jewish camp. Okay, Nadav, let me ask you this. First of all, you mentioned Ehud Omert, you mentioned other Israeli leaders went to prison for lesser crimes than Netanyahu is being accused of. Although Olmert resigned from office in 2009 and his trial and conviction were not.

[A]

For years later, he resigned then because people like me that might have supported some of his opinions on certain issues said that he needs to resign. When the police investigation was opened, he had no echo chamber that Netanyahu has through various people who represent him or would want to echo his arguments that say that he needs to stay in office. That was very true for Yitzhak Rabin, who was the first prime minister to resign because of what? Because of a Bank account with $300 in it that was against the law back in the 1970s. I know that some people that listen to you, Dan, they appreciate what Israel is and Israel. Israel as a special place and Israel's principles and values. Well, values are where it's hard. And it's the Israeli way that tackles these issues, that doesn't think that if a prime minister received gifts, like, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, doesn't matter if it's boxes of champagne or if jewelry or cigars used by code name to an American friend that also asked him for favors, that this is just nonsense. Now, I understand that some people do think that this is just minimal things. It's not as important as.

[C]

Look, I take your point that Omer did not have the support within a. Like, he didn't have a political base the way Netanyahu has. So he had nowhere to go, is basically, I think, what you're arguing. 2009, when he resigned, he knew he was under legal pressure or growing legal pressure, which ultimately he didn't go to prison, as I said, till years later, wasn't found guilty, and he didn't have some base of support. Netanyahu does. Now, you could say that's fair, that's unfair, but that's just a reality Netanyahu does have. The country is much more polarized along a number of issues, including this one, as Amit says, than it was when Omer was in power. That is what it is. My only point is what I'm struck by, Nadav, and I am not a legal expert, and I'm certainly not an Israeli legal expert, but having consulted some legal experts in Israel, one of whom is a fierce critic of Netanyahu, on other issues did make the point. And a number of them make the point that these cases, while there's substance to them, they're not a slam dunk. They're not totally persuasive. And if you are going to remove a sitting prime minister from office and bring down a government, the case has got to be pretty buttoned down. And if they are not that persuasive, and I think you would probably even argue that they're not, you know, totally buttoned down, you know, in terms of the strength of persuasiveness of them, it is putting enormous pressure on the political system and on the trust that close to half the country who supports his prime minister, you know, has in the system.

[A]

Of course, I think that nothing is a slam dunk for me. Generally, I believe in the judicial process. I believe that until a man is proven guilty, until a verdict is being handed, he's not guilty. And that's true for Prime Minister Netanyahu as well. But if you talk with legal experts, they probably told you that what we call the 1000 case, the first case as to gifts received by the prime minister, since the facts are not really debated, that is a slam dunk. Now, the question there is, is it bribery or is it just breach of trust? Criminal breach of trust. That's the question as to 2000 and 4000, which are different cases. There are questions there. But the question you raised, Dan, sort of supposes that this is about Netanyahu being prime minister, because if the court rules that he's guilty, he's going to cease to be prime minister. And as Amit said earlier, that's not going to happen with this court. That's going to happen only with the Supreme Court appeal. That's going to take years from now. So the way that you just frame this as though we're either months away or a year away from a decision by the court to overthrow a ruling prime minister. Well, this is not where we are at right now.

[C]

Meaning he'll play out for so much longer that it won't.

[A]

Yeah, it's not about that. It's about Netanyahu wants this over. Okay. And because he fears that after he's not prime minister, and this is one of the reasons he's doing this now, that after that he might go to jail or not. I don't think that he's gonna go to jail at about the age of 80, but being indicted and having some sort of criminal verdict against him. So it's really not about that. Now, the thing is that Again and again during this conversation, we're not speaking about why this is taking so long. It's taking so long because the Prime Minister has decided to use every means in his power to make it as long as a process as he can. And because the previous Attorney General Mendelbrid that Amit mentioned decided to basically took a really long time in deciding this. Now, the current Attorney General that Netanyahu sees as his fiercest enemy that was nominated in the previous government, she wants to get to a plea deal. Everybody wants a plea deal, Dan. The President wants a plea deal. The Attorney General wants a plea deal. The lawyers who are persecuting this want a plea deal. The problem is that Netanyahu is not willing to give anything in that plea deal that will lead to his political demise. That's the real thing. He wants to survive this. He wants to get out of this completely scratch free. And this is about this. Now, as to what happened to the Israeli society, well, those protests weren't about the Netanyahu trial. There were protests about Netanyahu standing to trial. Okay, what we call the Balfour demonstrations, but they were much more limited if you compare them to the widest protests in the history of Israel, the judicial overhaul of judicial coup protests in Kaplan and many other places across the country. Now, why did these happen? They happened because Netanyahu changed his view that he held for 60 years or more than that. As to the importance of the Supreme Court, Netanyahu as late as 2015 said, and I'm quoting, we must constantly fortify the power of the country's democratic institutions, foremost among them the judicial system, which must remain robust and independent. The Supreme Court is the cornerstone of Israeli democracy. More than that, it's a beacon of justice and morality. And then he went on to quote Alan Dershowitz and Erwin Kotler, who say that it is the most independent judicial system in the world. That was 2015. Few years later, there's a police investigation and the man who holds the helm of the country rediscovers the idea that maybe Israel's judges are too independent and maybe they're too left leaning and he needs to have a reform. So I totally agree with Amit, with the bottom line of Amit, we need this case over. But the question is how? And what does it say to all the other politicians that are standing now to police investigations?

[C]

Okay, Amit, there's a lot to respond there.

[B]

Yes, let's set the record straight about Netanyahu's criminal cases in order to understand how different it is from the Olmert and Hirschen cases, the Hirson case was very simple. There was a Treasury minister that stole money. The Olmert case was rather clear and classic as well. It was about taking bribery. The Netanyahu cases were based on legal precedents. The former Attorney of the State, Shan Y Tsun admitted it. He said, this was a precedent, but we cannot avoid trying to set it because it's only the Prime Minister. Now, I think this was a miserable mistake because you do not try to create legal precedents when it's the Prime Minister, when you take the country for a rendezvous that might last for years. And it's not only me who thinks this, because the case 4000, the only case, was bribery in it collapsed even before Netanyahu testified himself. It collapsed while his prosecutor still trying to make the case. The judges came to them and said, we recommend that you actually don't try to indict Netanyahu anymore with those cases. Now, does Netanyahu prolong the process? Maybe. But I think that the most problematic thing that actually prolonged the process is the refusal of the current Attorney General to admit the reality, to recognize what the reality is, and to actually adopt the recommendation of the judges.

[A]

But Amit, we didn't even reach the 4,000 testimony. So even if they would have taken the advice of the judges and these proceedings are still being held, it wouldn't have shortened the way that we have gotten here.

[B]

There is a reason why they don't do it. It because for them, it's a religion. It's not something legal anymore. Why didn't Avi Khamenev, the former Attorney General, took Netanyahu to the 1000 case only because this was the first case. And as Nadav says, this is the case that worries Netanyahu's the most, because he knew it's not enough. If you want to take the country for this crazy trip, you have to base your case on something bigger than the case. 1000 of cigars and champagnes. It's not me saying it. It's Avicha Imamdalit himself who said this. Now they were left now without the main course. They have only the dessert or the digestif or the aperitif, but they don't have the main course. And I think that after 10 years of trying to topple Netanyahu's regime, it's time to recognize the fact that all you have at hand is this relatively marginal case. Now, Nadav might say, no, you can go to jail with those indictments. And yes, technically you can. But I Don't believe that at the age of 81 or 82, anyone is going to send Netanyahu to jail. I think for Netanyahu, it's like the name of the feature, clear and present danger. So this is a clear danger. Of course, when you are indicted in court, the conviction rate in Israel in criminal cases is 97%. So Netanyahu has, say, not 3%, but 30% of getting acquitted. He won't take this risk. However, this is not a present danger, because once this it is decided, Netanyahu will no longer be in office. So it's time for us once and for all to end this tragedy that in my opinion, caused for the October 7th tragedy, because we were obsessed with defeating each other, getting the 61st seat. I'll give you an example. Nadav knows it very well. This religion war between center, left and right in Israel about Bibi came to a level in which one evening, the leader of the Labour Party shaved his mustache in order to actually swear that he's not going to enter Netanyahu's coalition. Now this is time to end this church of yes baby, no baby. And this is the way to do it, in my opinion.

[C]

Okay, I have a question for Amit. But Nadav, I want to give you a chance to respond.

[A]

Yeah. I think that this entire framing of this as a crazy crusade against Netanyahu, considering all we know about what the Israeli judicial system, the way that it has treated people from both sides of the aisles, by the way, the first of which was a prime minister from Labor, Yitzhak Rabin, that was a hero of Israel. To describe this as a crusade against Netanyahu is indeed for me, the Netanyahu derangement syndrome. It's just the other way around. It's everything about Bibi. It's not about the offense, it's not about the facts, it's not about the history of the judicial system, it's not about presidents that go to an investigation. Kotavo was not the first. We had a Weizmann that needed to retire because of a corruption charge. We have so many mayors and municipalities heads. This idea that in this country people are truly equal in front of the law is an essential idea. Now, what Amid does here is, I think, Amit, that you are mixing together two different things, very different things. One of them is the Netanyahu corruption trial. It exists. And the other one is that Netanyahu has spent his entire career talking against what he labeled the Israeli elites or the lefties who forgot how to be Jews. This is his Statements, not someone who wrote about him. This is not books. This is the way that he or Netanyahu is good for the Jews. There are so many mistakes that he made in that regard. Mistakes for me, in terms of national unity. And because of that, half the country, including many, many right wingers represented by Lieberman or by somewhat, to some extent, Bennett, some right wingers. I know that most of the people who support him right now are not exactly right wingers. That many of these people would not want to sit together with Netanyahu in the same coalition. Not because it's a religion, not because it's an obsession, not because they are deranged, but because the voters see this prime minister, who I think served more time as a prime minister than Franklin Delano Roosevelt spent as the President of the United States. So they do not want it. And it has nothing to do with the trial.

[B]

Nadav, you are absolutely right. But here's the thing. Until 2015, I mean, people hated or loved Netanyahu very passionately since he entered politics in 1988. However, till 2015, there wasn't a moratorium on sitting with Netanyahu. Even Herzog, who today is the president, but was the labor leader or the leader of the opposition, didn't say that he's not willing to sit with Netanyahu. He actually wanted to sit with him. But from 2019, Gantz Lapid. Even today, Bennett, these days, every one of them refuses to sit with Netanyahu. And I ask myself, what happened between 2015 and 2019? And my answer is 2016. The investigation against Netanyahu.

[A]

Gantz joined his government in a rotation agreement only because of a world plague during COVID Yes.

[B]

Or the October 7th war.

[C]

Meaning these leaders ran saying they would never sit with Netanyahu. That's, I think, the point.

[A]

Gantz was much less upbeat as to that. And the reason? If you speak with Gantz today and you ask him if you sit with Netanyahu, that's a good example of mate. He'll say never. Why, after the war, he sat with Netanyahu. And what happened? Netanyahu cheated him.

[B]

This is not a question, Nadav. It's fascinating. I wouldn't sit with Netanyahu because I don't trust a promise of him. Okay, but here's the thing. Till 2015, everyone agreed to sit with Netanyahu. No one bent him, save the far left and the Arab parties. And from 2019, even the moderate figures like Benny Gantz repeatedly said that they refused to sit with Netanyahu. So what? The Hell happened. And the answer is the 2016, 2017 criminal investigations.

[A]

I think I know this camp as good as you know, and probably better. Netanyahu has become, in many, many circles of the Israeli society, illegitimate as a partner for a coalition government. It doesn't mean that they don't recognize him as a prime minister. They don't want people who vote for a party, don't want that party to give credence or power to Netanyahu. And the reason for that is not because they are infatuated with the corruption charges against him, or they are convinced that Netanyahu is an arch criminal bigger than Olmert. It's because here I go, Amit. They've had enough. And after many, many years of Netanyahu as Prime Minister, the circles of the opposition have had enough with him. Every time he makes an agreement with them, he breaks the agreement.

[B]

No, no, this is not the thing, Nadavan. Sorry. You said they have had enough, but I remember vaguely. I remember Netanyahu when I was 14 and he ran for office. He was hated in Tel Aviv, he was hated in the Labor Party. He was hated in Merits. The discourse or the ideological fights between right and left in the 90s were way more dramatic than today. We fought about the Oslo Accords. He was the enemy of the peace. Nowadays, 80% of Israelis agree on 80% of the things. So how come exactly when the vast majority of debates within the Israeli public ended, that all of a sudden Netanyahu, rather than having a very convenient unity coalition, he actually had to base his policy on Ben gvir, the former Khana supporter? Now, maybe, maybe not formal, and the ultra Orthodox and Smotrich. And the answer is because they repeatedly said that we are not allowed to sit with someone who is indicted and is charged with bribery.

[A]

The answer is, and you know this as a political commentator better than I do, that if and when Netanyahu was given the choice between sitting with the far right and with Benvir and sitting with the center, he will always choose the far right. And the reason is clear. Because Netanyahu will never entrust his fate with reasonable and credible people like Benny Gantz and others only. Why? Because if they withdraw from the government, he already lost the far right because he wouldn't sit with them.

[B]

Nadav. In 2009, Ben Gavir was the parliamentary assistant for another Kahana supporter, Michael Benary, and Netanyahu abandoned the alliance with the far right coalition, the founding fathers of Ben Gvir, and Smote Outreach Party. And he sat with Ehud Barak, the Leader of the Labour Party. How come what happened between 2009 and 2013 if it's the same Netanyahu?

[A]

I return to my original argument. I think it's the best argument. I think that if any country in the world had a leader, even Ben Gurion at the time is the founder of the state. And I hope I don't offend anyone, probably a greater leader than anyone else that led the country, even him at a certain point, his party committed an act that he deemed as full fledged mutiny and he retired, very bitter. To Ms. Debokel Netanyahu for the circles of the opposition and parts of the Israeli right wing. Right now it's the majority of the Israeli public. It's not necessarily going to be so in the next election. They've had enough with him, these people. If you talk with Yair Lapid, who sat in his government, if you talk with Benny Gantz, who sat in his government, these people don't want. If you said, when we talked with Yvette Lieberman, who was the Director General of the Prime Minister's office of Netanyahu and was the CEO of the Likud, they do not want to partner with him. It's not about a crusade about the man personally. It's about the voters. They want to get elected and the voters don't like him because he's been there forever and he represents the other side. And. And also because he's responsible for October 7th, because he's probably guilty, at least with some of the charges. Let's see what the courts say. They don't want it anymore. That's very democratic of them. To say we don't want to sit in a coalition government with you has nothing to do with the trial specifically. But the trial is also an argument.

[B]

And that's fine, since it's not a science. So no one knows. I gave my explanation and you gave yours. I just want to offer another option, and that is that the former ideological left versus right in Israel turned into a debate about Netanyahu. And in that respect, for Netanyahu, the trial was a problem. For the center left, it was a tragedy because it created a vacuum that actually inhaled or emptied the womb from another air, from the oxygen of ideology. Now, when Netanyahu was replaced by Bennett and Lapid, there wasn't a single change in the policy of the government, save the fact that Sarah Netanyahu had to change its home address from the Prime Minister's residence to Gaza 35 street in Jerusalem. The center left in Israel consists these days of Lieberman, the former far right pro hanging the Arab Knesset members, Naftali Bennett, the former CEO, those are the leaders of the center left. All they want to do is to actually topple Netanyahu himself. And I think that this trial did not destroy Netanyahu's career, it destroyed the center left. So I think that once and for all, not because I'm so worried about the center left, but because I think there is a desperate need for an alternative. Because these days Netanyahu can actually offer to give up the judicial reform and no one says a thing in the right wing because it became focused only on Netanyahu. And it's bad for, for me as a right winger who wants a judicial reform. It's bad for me as a pro annexation in Judea and Samaria, because no one offers an alternative for Netanyahu and especially bad for the center left, which is in a ridiculous way led by two settlers, Lieberman and Bennett, who will not offer any alternative. So let's get away with it. Let's just set the fight facts straight and leave it and move on. That's all I'm suggesting.

[C]

I want to move this conversation to where the politics are likely to play out. I'll start with you to DAV and then go to you, Amit. What do you see happening here politically? What are the implications of this?

[A]

So first of all, the question is, what will Herzog do? There is speculation that Herzog now will basically say, I'm willing to start debating the facts and not debating whether or not Netanyahu will retire if this is the case. First of all, it's going to be, as far as the opposition in Israel is concerned, it's going to be a huge scandal. And I suspect that the type of protests that we have seen before are just going to become more forceful if Herzog is going to close this criminal trial without Netanyahu having any end of sight to his career, actually without paying any price. It's not about his career being over or not paying an actual price. This would be seen as the Israeli state itself caving in to Netanyahu. And that would lead to those circles of opposition which are not only the central left, because as Amit said, he's right. Bennett and Lieberman are right wingers. They are also supported by people who reject Netanyahu. So I guess we'll see a lot of demonstrations towards the election. Now I want to say something, if you ask politically, that why now? Why is it happening politically speaking? Well, Netanyahu has just had a terrible Terrible week because he needed to pitch the law that will give the Ultra Orthodox waiver from the army. He could do this in two weeks from now. He could have done this a month ago. But in the recent week, Netanyahu has ordered that this law would be placed to the Knesset. It's a law that says it's basically caving in to much of the Ultra Orthodox demands. They're pretty happy about it, although they are waving their hands as though they aren't. It's better than anything that we've seen before in terms of the waiver from serving in the army. And if you are looking for something that in the Israeli right wing damages the Likud, including, by the way, with the settlers communities that have spent more time in reserve service probably than anyone else in the country, it's that waiver for the Ultra Orthodox, for the Yeshua boys not to serve in the army. So in the same week that he orders the Likud people to have this law passed through the Knesset, and we don't know if it has a majority. Very damaging. In terms of his own audience, what he actually does is he ignites the system with a request for pardon without admitting anything. Then Amit and me go about it for like 15 minutes now, and what aren't we talking about? We're not talking about that waiver. It's a classic Netanyahu maneuver. I'm not saying he's not looking for the pardon, but the pardon is much more of a super glue to his camp than the waiver for the Ultra Orthodox.

[C]

So, Amit, I wanna get into your political prognosis here, but before I do, just on that specific point from Nadav, do you think the timing of him issuing this request is to deflect from distract from the Haredi exemption bill that was just unveiled in the Knesset?

[B]

No. Tactically, yes, of course, but I don't think that the main. I mean, the entire thing came now in order to actually distract us from this highly unpopular bill. So it was a tactical decision to actually put it forward this Sunday and not next Sunday, let's say, but not from a strategic point of view. This is one thing when it comes to the political arena. Netanyahu gained many, many seats from this indictment. But he had hard times forming coalitions in the past. Netanyahu's Likud was smaller and Netanyahu's coalitions were bigger. It changed. This is one thing. And as for the pardon itself, I would say, you know, two days ago, there was a huge scandal because the Dublin municipality Tried to actually rename the Hein Herzog Square where Chaim Herzog park in Dublin because he was a Zionist.

[C]

Yeah. Just as far listeners who are unfollowing it. So Chaim Herzog, as we mentioned earlier, former President of Israel, the current president's father was Irish, Irish Jew. There was a park in Dublin named after him and the Dublin City Council, City hall tried to change the name of the park because it's a Zionist park. So that has been some kerfuffle going on that's been getting a lot of attention. It's actually outrageous.

[B]

So what they would, what they tried to, to say is that if Herzog the son, pardons Netanyahu. So I think that the family problem with naming swears wouldn't be in Dublin, but in Tel Aviv.

[C]

Okay. In terms of just political process here, politics. So you think, I guess ask each of you to make a prediction. What about any either of your views about where Israeli politics is heading going into the next election is changed by this development.

[B]

If Netanyahu is pardoned, it won't affect the election, in my opinion. It's more interesting what happens if Herzog refuses or set a terms, which is my prediction by the way, that he would say yes, but I want you to actually admit the facts at least. Yes, but only if you promise to resign in 2028. I don't know. If Netanyahu doesn't get the pardon, he will go to the polls and he'll say, listen, Herzog is now part of the leftist gang. He feared Kaplan, he feared the left, he feared the Supreme Court. And that's why you have to give me enough votes in order to cancel this trial once and for all.

[C]

Okay. Nadav Herzog's legacy here in terms of, in the context of all of this.

[A]

So I think it's the tragedy of Boji Herzog that is a man known for his desire to somehow get an agreement, get unity. It's also his job as the Israeli president that he's now faced with a binary choice. Dan, it's binary. If he grants a pardon to the Prime Minister without the Prime Minister redrawing from power now before the next elections. If Herzog now this binary choice gives him a pardon, he'll be immediately cast by half the country, probably more than half the country, as someone who caved into Netanyahu. That was also there, by the way, when Herzog was elected president. And people will argue that there was a deal, there was a conspiracy here and Herzog is going to have a really difficult time. Okay? Going on as the president of Israel, to say the least. If he won't give a pardon, it will be exactly the same. Netanyahu will go in a speech, Dan, and he will say something like, you know, this president has given pardons to murderers, to rapists, and he has not given a pardon to me. What does it say about the institution of the President of Israel? What does it say about the system of the witch hunt against me? So it's a win, win for Netanyahu towards the election for us to even start discussing this. I don't think it will change anything in terms of the results of the elections. If we'll receive a pardon, and I'll say something more than that. I don't think it will change anything related to what Amit said earlier. If he receives a pardon, of course, because Amit is saying, giving a pardon, close this case and we can all move on. If he'll receive a pardon, Amit, and I think you know that Bennett won't be able to go with him saying, oh, he got a pardon for Herzog after Bennett himself said today, no, he needs to retire from public life. Lapid said, he needs to retire from public life. Lieberman said, it's actually entrenching them in their positions. I think what's much more important than is how. So we're moving away from discussing October 7, responsibility for October 7 of the Prime Minister and the waiver to the ultra orthodox. We're moving towards the trial, and we're moving towards the criminal issue, and that's a benefit for Bibi in that regard. Amit is absolutely right, by the way.

[B]

The reason why Bennett won't be able to say it is exactly what Peres once said. Shimon Peres once said that you can make an omelette out of an egg, but you can't make an egg out of an omelet. Sometimes the process is irreversible.

[C]

Okay, So I want to just say, obviously this is not the last time we'll be digging into this conversation. I want to thank you both. I also, this is the first time we've been together on a podcast recording Amit since your family expanded. So mazel tov on the birth of your baby boy.

[B]

Thank you so much.

[C]

We don't have a name yet, right?

[B]

No, the name is only for the insiders. Only for the insiders.

[C]

Only for the insider. You know, Amit, Alana and I have been kicking around this idea for promoting people giving the inside call me back subscription as a Hanukkah gift. You can gift a subscription to other people. And we're trying to think of how to explain the benefits of Inside. Call me back. And I just realized, you get a.

[B]

Preview, you can vote on the name because I have no idea. I don't make the decisions. I don't take the decisions.

[C]

We take a vote.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

And I want to say this scene right near, for those of you who can see is Amit's daughter sitting on his lap while he's trying to have a conversation about the legacy of Bouji Herzog and the future of Israeli politics and arguing with Nadav. This is all like a quintessential Israeli scene. Is like, the kids are welcome everywhere. Reminds me of the story of my sister who lives in Jerusalem when she was the head of the AIPAC office in Jerusalem. This is like 20 plus years ago. She was out with her daughter shoe shopping. And Wise Glass, who was Sharon's chief advisor, Dubey Wiseglass called her and said, we need to see you. The Prime Minister needs to see you. And she says, I'm out shopping for shoes with my daughter. And he says, it's fine. This is Israel. Bring your daughter. So my sister brought her daughter to the Prime Minister's office and they put the baby in the corner, the kid in the corner, and they sat there and had a meeting.

[B]

It's okay because Shaul made his son a Knesset member, so I guess he felt quite convenient was bringing they. They daughters and sons.

[C]

Okay. All right. Amit Nadav, thank you for this and. And thank you for this special cameo from your daughter and. And mazel tov.

[B]

Thank you so much. Bye bye.

[A]

Bye bye.

[C]

That's our show for today. If you value the Call Me Back podcast and you want to support our mission, please subscribe to our weekly members only show, Inside Call Me Back. Inside Call Me Back is where Nadavael Amit Segal and I respond to challenging questions from listeners and have the conversations that typically occur after the cameras stop rolling. To subscribe, please follow the link in the show notes or you can go to arkmedia.org that's Ark Media. Call Me Back is produced and edited by Ilan Benatar. ARC Media's executive producer is Adam James Levin Aretti. Sound and video editing by Martin Huergo and Marian Chiles Burgos. Our director of operations, Maya Rockoff. Research by Gabe Silverstein. Our music was composed by Yuval Semo. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Senor.

[A]

Sam.