Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the country’s president on Sunday for a pardon in his long-running corruption trial, arguing that criminal proceedings were hindering his ability to govern and a pardon would be good for Israel.

Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, denies the bribery, fraud, and breach of trust charges. His lawyers said in a letter to the president’s office that the prime minister still believes the legal proceedings would result in a complete acquittal.

“My lawyers sent a request for pardon to the president of the country today. I expect that anyone who wishes for the good of the country support this step,” Netanyahu said in a brief video statement released by his political party, the Likud.

Neither the prime minister, who has been on trial for five years, nor his lawyers made any admission of guilt.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid said Netanyahu should not be pardoned without admitting guilt, expressing remorse, and immediately retiring from political life.

Pardons in Israel have typically been granted only after legal proceedings have concluded and the accused has been convicted. Netanyahu’s lawyers argued that the president can intervene when public interest is at stake, as in this case, with a view to healing divisions and strengthening national unity.

President Isaac Herzog’s office described the request as “extraordinary” with “significant implications.” The president “will responsibly and sincerely consider the request” after receiving relevant opinions, his office said.

US President Donald Trump wrote to Herzog this month, urging him to consider granting the prime minister a pardon, saying the case against him was “a political, unjustified prosecution.”

Herzog’s office said the request would be forwarded to the pardons department in the justice ministry, as is standard practice, to collect opinions, which would be submitted to the president’s legal adviser, who will formulate a recommendation for the president.

Israel’s Justice Minister, Yariv Levin, is a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party and a close ally of the prime minister.

In the letter, Netanyahu’s lawyers argued that criminal proceedings against him had deepened societal divisions and that ending the trial was necessary for national reconciliation. They also wrote that increasingly frequent court hearings were burdensome while the prime minister was attempting to govern.

“I am required to testify three times a week … That is an impossible demand that is not made of any other citizen,” Netanyahu said in the video statement, emphasizing that he had received the public’s trust by repeatedly winning elections.

Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 in three separate but related cases that center around accusations that he granted favors to prominent business figures in exchange for gifts and sympathetic media coverage.

The prime minister has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Coalition allies issued statements supporting Netanyahu’s request for a pardon, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Opposition politician Yair Golan, a former deputy chief of the military, called on the prime minister to resign, urging the president not to grant a pardon.

Netanyahu is one of the country’s most polarizing political figures, who was first elected prime minister in 1996. He has since served in government and opposition and returned to the prime minister’s office following the 2022 election.

The next election is due by October 2026, and many polls indicate that his coalition, the most right-wing in Israel’s history, would struggle to win enough seats to form a government.

Throughout his career, Netanyahu has cultivated a reputation for prioritizing security and economic issues, but he has also been dogged by the corruption charges. He was prime minister on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched its attack on Israel, widely regarded as the most traumatic event in the country’s history and the deadliest assault on Jews since the Holocaust.

Since then, he has overseen the devastating war in Gaza, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and leveled much of the territory, drawing broad international criticism and condemnation. Israel has severely weakened Hamas and also Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah and this year launched a war against Iran that destroyed critical military infrastructure.

(JTA) — Peter Beinart began his first social media post after his latest speaking engagement with an apology.

“By speaking earlier this week at Tel Aviv University, I made a serious mistake,” the progressive Jewish writer posted on X, a day after a scheduled appearance at the Israeli school.

The morning before, he had defended his plans, saying he saw “value in speaking to Israelis about Israel’s crimes.” Now, he said, “I let my desire for that conversation override my solidarity with Palestinians, who in the face of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide have asked the world boycott Israeli institutions that are complicit in their oppression.”

Beinart’s apology came in the face of steep criticism from some on the anti-Israel left, where Beinart has long been one of the most prominent Jewish voices. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, a founding member of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, publicly and privately called on Beinart to cancel his talk, and he endured a bruising volley of castigation online.

Emphasizing that he had not been paid for his speech, Beinart said he had been motivated by wanting to influence Israeli Jews as he said he had with American Jews “with whom I strongly disagree, both to listen and in hopes of changing their minds.” But he said he had come to understand that he could have done that without speaking at an Israeli university, and that he had erred by not consulting Palestinians when making his plans.

“It’s embarrassing to admit such a serious mistake,” Beinart wrote. “I dearly wish I had not made this one, which has caused particular harm because international pressure is crucial to ensuring Palestinian freedom. This was a failure of judgment. I am sorry.”

PACBI did not publicly respond to Beinart’s apology. But the mea culpa ignited a wave of criticism of its own from Jewish and pro-Israel voices who said it typified an absolutist ethos in the progressive pro-Palestinian movement that they have long denounced.

“The dynamics of the radical left, especially the American one (which draws on puritanical patterns) demonstrated here include social pressure, incessant border-drawing, threats of boycotts, repeated demands to confess sins, and the perception of confession as a submission that redeems the guilty from the fate of traitors to the revolution,” tweeted the Israeli scholar Tomer Persico, who is currently on the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley. “This is a political-social space that is purist to the point of self-destruction.”

An Israeli trauma psychologist said Beinart’s apology reflected a stance she had seen before from abused women or people trapped in cults. “They start treating ordinary acts of agency — talking to someone outside the circle or forming a judgment on their own — as betrayals that must be confessed,” wrote Orli Peter in a widely viewed post. “This isn’t moral clarity; it’s fear wearing the mask of conscience.”

Some said Beinart’s apology landed in a historical pattern in which Jews who have sought to ally themselves with antisemitic movements are cast out themselves, sometimes with mortal consequences.

“No Jew is ever good enough for the Jew-hater,” tweeted the Scottish Jewish pundit Ben Freeman. “The goal posts are always moved. The Jew is always left begging for acceptance. They are the ultimate parvenu. Always seeking approval, never gaining it. A Jewish tragedy if ever there was one.”

Some moderate pro-Palestinian voices also weighed in critically. “This is truly embarrassing and deeply self-deprecatory behavior,” tweeted Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Gazan emigre who is critical of much of contemporary pro-Palestinian activism and who himself spoke to an Israeli news organization this week.

“Asking for forgiveness because you spoke to Israeli students who belong to your tribe, are your people, and part of your community is not going to make you more liked, accepted, or embraced by the rabid elements of the ‘pro-Palestine’ movement and the BDS cultists who have long stopped viewing their efforts as a tactic and devolved into demonizing Jews, Israelis, and Zionists as the actual end goal,” Alkhatib added.

Before his apology, Beinart had spoken to a number of Tel Aviv students, including some who attended because they disagree with his views on Israel. Gabi Schiller, a social media activist who has worked at the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs, wrote that some of her Tel Aviv University classmates had spoken with Beinart after his talk to challenge him on his ideas, including his promotion of a one-state solution.

“Putting aside the content of what they discussed, what took place in that moment was inherently valuable, despite how much I oppose Beinart’s stances: the exchange of opinion and ideas in an academic space in a respectful way,” Schiller wrote on Instagram, where she posts under the account name Yehudim Omrim. The experience, she said, was “increasingly impossible on North American campuses around domestic politics and certainly around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where anti-normalization has become the new litmus test to be permitted into social spaces.”

The post After drawing BDS backlash, progressive Jewish writer Peter Beinart apologizes for speaking at Tel Aviv U appeared first on The Forward.

In 2022, during a reporting trip to London, I had tea with a source who confessed to me that her mother’s central interest was the work of Tom Stoppard. It was more than an interest, really: “He was the main thing in her life,” she said.

There are artists you admire, and then there are artists you flat-out adore. Particularly cerebral types, like Stoppard, risk falling into the first category: They may generate great thoughts, but those great thoughts have a great chance of leaving you cold. That wasn’t the case for Stoppard, who died Saturday at 88, and was a thinker worth adoring. His best work achieved a rare balance: Audiences left his most affecting plays with both a fresh perspective on the world, and a feeling of great warmth toward it.

I felt that myself, after seeing a much-heralded revival of Stoppard’s Travesties on Broadway in 2018. It’s quite a highbrow play, about the brief intersection, in Switzerland during World War I, of the lives and work of James Joyce, Vladimir Lenin and Tristan Tzara, founder of Dadaism. It made me laugh until I cried. And the gloss Stoppard bestowed on this obscure episode of history followed me out of the theater, giving a brief sheen to everything and everyone I saw. I felt as though I floated back to Brooklyn, and as if the Q train might be full of personalities I’d never guess were important until years afterward.

Much of Stoppard’s work revolved around the question of what it really means to live an important life — one that is not just full, but has some kind of identifiable impact on others. The main character of Travesties isn’t Joyce, Lenin or Tzara; he’s an endearingly self-satisfied British diplomat, Henry Carr, who briefly found himself in the same circles as those luminaries. As the play opens, decades later, he’s trying to conjure up a memoir about his time in the presence of the greats, with the implication that he deserves to be considered among their ranks.

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, the play that made Stoppard into a star at age 29, the two title characters grapple with their inability to in any way change the course of a narrative — that of Hamlet — that they know will lead to their deaths. In Shakespeare in Love, the film that won Stoppard an Oscar in 1998, he and his coauthor Marc Norman imagined the king of English playwrights as a young man full of talent but still struggling toward greatness, in need of an overwhelming emotional shock to propel him into complete ownership of his gifts.

There are the 19th-century Russian revolutionaries of the ambitious trilogy The Coast of Utopia; the intellectuals seeking to redefine the world and its history in Arcadia; the striving academics of The Hard Problem; the newly emancipated Viennese Jews of Leopoldstadt, the play Stoppard wrote that most profoundly invoked his heritage. Over and over, variations of the same question emerge. What does it mean to live completely and well, as an individual and a member of society?

“If there is any meaning in any of it” — “it” being the brutal course of history, its neverending cycles of destruction — “it is in what survives as art, yes even in the celebration of tyrants, yes even in the celebration of nonentities,” Joyce declares in Travesties. Later, Carr echoes him — a surprise, as the two hold very little respect for one another. When told that the only relevant function of art is “social criticism,” he protests.

“A great deal of what we call art,” he says, “has no such function, and yet in some way it gratifies a hunger that is common to princes and peasants.”

Not everyone wants to be an artist, and, as Carr reflects at the end of Travesties, it’s a sure thing that not everyone can be. But in the wake of Stoppard’s death, I’ve found myself thinking about the mother of my one-time source, so enraptured by what Stoppard created that her own child saw his work as the most profound passion of her life.

It’s easy to say that kind of effect made Stoppard’s life important. But the quieter story, I think, is that it made that devoted fan’s life important, too. Because she loved Stoppard, she saw herself as more firmly secured in her own existence; she saw herself as having a purpose and place.

To help someone experience their own significance — to gratify the common hunger that afflicts us all — is a great gift. And Stoppard gave it to many, including to me.

The post The gift Tom Stoppard gave to me — and to all who adore him appeared first on The Forward.