Lawyer criticizes Netanyahu's plea for pardon as 'questionable,' not for 'legal reasons'

Attorney Kobi Sudri appeared on 103FM alongside hosts Anat Davidov and Prof. Aryeh Eldad, expressing doubts about the legal basis and true purpose of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent request for a presidential pardon. The application, submitted to President Isaac Herzog on Sunday, has drawn sharp criticism from legal analysts and public commentators.

Speaking on Monday, Sudri stated, "The pardon request, while commonly referred to as such, fails to satisfy the formal criteria required for an official application. He added, "This raises questions about whether its intent is strictly legal. A person confident in their innocence does not need a pardon."

Sudri clarified the limits of his commentary, noting, "I am cautious when providing expert opinions on legal cases I am not directly involved in. Even as a participant in proceedings, predicting outcomes is difficult. There is no legitimate pardon request without the applicant acknowledging some responsibility."

In a related event, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the nation following Israels targeted killing of Hezbollahs deputy leader, Ali Tabatabai, in Beirut on November 23, 2025.

Regarding Netanyahus ongoing legal challenges, Sudri remarked on the broader political ramifications. "Many overlook the past five or six years of repeated elections and government instability. Even prior to October 7, issues like administrative neglect and an excessive focus on legal battles were already prominent."

Sudri also highlighted the absence of any mention of the October 7 Hamas attack in Netanyahus pardon request. "The document details numerous accomplishments, yet there is not a single reference to the October 7 incident. Nothing at all."

Analysis: Netanyahu’s Pardon Request – A Political Move or a Legal Necessity?

The recent pardon request submitted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked intense debate. Attorney Kobi Sudri, speaking on 103FM, raised significant concerns about the legal basis of the request, pointing out that it fails to meet the necessary criteria for a formal pardon application. Sudri's observations shed light on the ambiguity surrounding the true intent behind the request, suggesting that it may be less about legal remedy and more about political maneuvering.

Sudri's argument is simple: "A person confident in their innocence does not need a pardon." This raises a crucial question—why would Netanyahu, who maintains his innocence in the ongoing legal cases, seek a pardon? Sudri's cautious approach, emphasizing his role as a legal expert without direct involvement in the case, further complicates the narrative. He notes that no legitimate pardon request can exist without the applicant acknowledging some responsibility, something Netanyahu's application fails to do.

Furthermore, the broader political implications cannot be ignored. Sudri pointed out that the ongoing political instability, marked by repeated elections and shifting government alliances, has clouded the political landscape for years. These issues, including the government's focus on legal battles instead of administrative challenges, have weighed heavily on Netanyahu’s leadership and public perception. The lack of mention of the October 7 Hamas attack in Netanyahu's pardon request is also telling. This omission highlights the disconnect between Netanyahu’s political narrative and the ongoing national crises that continue to unfold.

Ultimately, this development underscores the complex intersection of legal, political, and public concerns. Netanyahu’s pardon request, though framed as a legal necessity, seems to carry significant political weight that could affect both his leadership and the nation’s stability moving forward.

Sources:

• Attorney slams Netanyahu's pardon request as 'suspicious,' not for 'legal purposes'