Herzog's stance on Netanyahu's pardon raises possibility of compromise if election ends in deadlock

President Isaac Herzog said on Wednesday that his considerations on whether a pardon could serve as leverage on the way to a unity government were "solely substantive." He said that before deciding on any pardon request, he had proposed mediation under the auspices of the President’s Residence, and that he believes Netanyahu’s trial should end through an agreement and plea deal.

According to Herzog, the prime minister has not yet responded to the mediation proposal, and he continues to leave that possibility open. Political figures have raised a scenario in which, if neither side has 61 seats and Herzog is determined to prevent another election cycle, ideas for a unity government and a rotation arrangement could return to the table.

Pardon issue enters broader political discussions

Some have raised, as a possible scenario, the idea that the pardon issue could emerge as part of a broader discussion on a political compromise. Sources close to Herzog declined to address that possibility and emphasized that consideration of the pardon issue is being conducted solely on substantive grounds.

The issue is being discussed against the backdrop of the possibility that another election could end without a clear outcome. In that case, the President’s Residence could become one of the central arenas in efforts to break the deadlock. Herzog has already said he will do everything possible to prevent another round of elections and has indicated that he intends to use the discretion available to him to help establish a stable government.

In interviews on Wednesday, Herzog said, "I will do everything so that there will not be repeat elections, and that a stable government will be established in Israel." Regarding the possibility of bringing political figures together and pushing for the formation of a unity government, he added: "I have a wide set of tools; the discretion is broad." Herzog declined to specify which framework he would support.

Sources close to Herzog said that while the president’s powers in the government formation process are defined by law, the legislation does not address every detail of the process and therefore leaves the president with broad discretion. According to officials at the President’s Residence, court rulings and precedents are binding, and the central question remains who can form a government. However, within that framework, the president retains flexibility in the way he manages the process.

Past presidents intervened during political deadlocks

The extent of Herzog’s room for action would ultimately depend on the election results and the political landscape that emerges afterward. There are precedents for such discretion. In 2019, after the 22nd Knesset elections, then-president Reuven Rivlin brought together Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz and worked to promote a unity government. He proposed an equal government structure and changes to the arrangements surrounding incapacity and the position of acting prime minister in an effort to resolve the political impasse.

An earlier precedent appears in the memoirs of Israel’s sixth president, Chaim Herzog, who described how he acted after the 1984 elections to advance a unity government between the Alignment and Likud.

"I had to try to bring together the different elements rather than allow the dynamics of events to lead to the development of a dangerous split," he wrote.

When the deadlock continued, Herzog granted Shimon Peres additional time to form a government. Later, when negotiations reached an impasse, he wrote that he "acted to establish a small negotiating team," including representatives from Likud and the Labor Party. Days later, Peres and Yitzhak Shamir’s unity government was presented, built around a rotation agreement.

The precedents of Chaim Herzog and Rivlin do not indicate how the current president would act if a deadlock emerged after the elections, but they show that the President’s Residence has previously served not only as a formal stop for receiving recommendations and assigning the mandate to form a government. Presidents have attempted, under different circumstances and with different tools, to help political parties reach agreements when the political system struggled to do so on its own.

The reason the scenario is already occupying the political system lies in the coalition map. Possible paths to forming a government without Netanyahu could involve various combinations of Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, Avigdor Liberman and the Democrats, while other scenarios could require Haredi parties to join or some form of reliance on Arab parties.

These possibilities are not politically identical, and some involve significant gaps between potential partners. Coalition figures estimate that Netanyahu may view this complexity as a reason to believe that even if his opponents succeed in forming a government, it would face significant internal tensions, similar to those experienced by the previous change government.

The conscription law could add another difficulty of its own. Sources familiar with contacts involving Haredi parties said they have heard from Haredi officials about the possibility that at least some factions would prefer to remain in the opposition until the issue is resolved. They stressed that there could be differences on this matter between Shas and United Torah Judaism.

Under such a scenario, Haredi parties could initially remain outside both blocs, making government formation even more difficult.