Israel’s death penalty law sparks global condemnation

In a move that has ignited fierce debate both domestically and internationally, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, has approved legislation introducing the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis under specific circumstances.

The law, backed by Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu and championed by Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, represents a significant departure from Israel’s longstanding reluctance to apply capital punishment. While supporters frame it as a necessary deterrent against violence, critics argue that it institutionalizes discrimination and undermines international legal norms.

A law years in the making

The passage of the bill marks the culmination of a sustained campaign by Israel’s far-right political factions to impose harsher penalties on Palestinians accused of nationalistically motivated attacks. The legislation passed with a 62-48 majority, reflecting deep divisions within Israeli society and politics.

Ben-Gvir, a central architect of the law, framed it as a long-overdue corrective. For him and his allies, the measure symbolizes strength and deterrence in the face of persistent violence. The political momentum behind the bill intensified following the events of 7 October 2023 (whereby Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”), which shifted many Israelis towards the far-right camp as well as reshaped public discourse on security and punishment in Israel.

Yet the law’s critics argue that its passage is less about security and more about ideological positioning, particularly in a political climate increasingly shaped by nationalist rhetoric and electoral calculations.

Key provisions and legal structure

At its core, the law introduces the death penalty, specifically by hanging, as the default punishment for Palestinians in the West Bank convicted of “nationalistic killings.” This provision primarily applies through military courts, which exclusively try Palestinians living under Israeli military administration.

In this context, 2 structural features define the law’s practical implications:

First, it establishes a default death sentence in military courts, allowing deviation only under “special circumstances.”

Second, it defines capital offenses in a way that ties them to actions perceived as rejecting the existence of the “State of Israel.”

Although the law formally allows Israeli civilian courts to impose the death penalty on Israeli citizens, legal experts note that its wording and application thresholds make such outcomes highly unlikely for Jewish Israelis. In effect, the legislation is expected to disproportionately affect Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens or residents of East Jerusalem.

Additionally, the law removes several procedural safeguards. A unanimous judicial decision is no longer required to impose a death sentence, and avenues for clemency or appeal are significantly restricted. Execution is mandated within 90 days of sentencing, with limited possibilities for delay.

Legal and constitutional challenges

The legislation is already facing legal challenges. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has petitioned Israel’s highest court, arguing that the law is “discriminatory by design” and exceeds the Knesset’s jurisdiction, particularly in relation to Palestinians in the West Bank.

Legal scholars have also raised concerns about the compatibility of the law with Israel’s Basic Laws, which function as a constitutional framework. Critics argue that the legislation violates principles of equality before the law and due process.

Furthermore, experts question the Knesset’s authority to legislate for territories that are not internationally recognized as sovereign Israeli land. This raises complex issues under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly regarding the treatment of occupied populations.

Domestic opposition and ethical concerns

Opposition to the law has not been limited to legal experts or human rights organizations. Within the Knesset itself, several lawmakers voiced strong objections.

Critics, including Gilad Kariv, of the Labor Party, highlighted the absence of safeguards such as unanimous verdicts and clemency provisions, arguing that these omissions increase the risk of irreversible miscarriages of justice. Kariv expressed concern that the law could endanger Israeli soldiers and officials by exposing them to international legal liability. Meanwhile, Aida Sliman of Hadash, the leftist Jewish-Arab political party, left the chamber in dismay before the votes were complete.

Some lawmakers also warned of broader ethical implications. The normalization of capital punishment, they argued, contradicts long-standing Jewish and democratic values highlighting the sanctity of life. Security experts have also questioned the law’s effectiveness as a deterrent, suggesting it could instead fuel cycles of retaliation and escalate tensions.

International reaction and legal implications

The international response has been swift and largely critical. Several European governments, including that of Britain, France, and Germany, along with human rights organizations, have condemned the law as discriminatory and incompatible with global norms opposing capital punishment.

Statements from international actors stressed that the death penalty has not been proven to deter violent crime and warned that its application in this context could violate international law. The law’s perceived targeting of a specific ethnic and national group has further intensified concerns about discrimination and potential breaches of human rights conventions.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has also condemned the legislation, arguing that it reflects a broader system of inequality and occupation.

A break with historical practice

Historically, Israel has been extremely reluctant to use the death penalty. The only widely recognized execution carried out by Tel Aviv was that of Adolf Eichmann in 1962, following his conviction for crimes against humanity (one of the serious crimes under international law).

Although capital punishment has remained technically legal for certain offenses, it has rarely been applied in practice. Successive Israeli governments and institutions, including security agencies, have often opposed its use, citing concerns about escalation and moral implications.

The new law thus represents a significant departure from decades of restraint, signaling a shift toward a more punitive and security-driven legal approach.