Israeli Death Penalty Bill Debate: Legislative Impact and Regional Implications Regarding Palestinian Attackers

More than two years after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the Israeli parliament is engaged in intense debate over a highly controversial piece of legislation. The death penalty bill, promoted by the far-right Jewish Power party, aims to impose mandatory hanging on Palestinian perpetrators of fatal terrorist attacks convicted by Israeli courts. In November last year, the bill passed its first reading in the 120-seat parliament with 39 votes in favor and 16 against. Zvika Fogel, Chairman of the National Security Committee, called it "another brick in our defensive wall," while human rights organizations condemned it as one of the most extreme legislative proposals in Israel's history. This debate not only concerns punishment but also touches on issues of identity in Israeli society, the racial boundaries of the legal system, and the increasingly right-leaning political climate amid the Gaza war.

Legislative Process and Political Maneuvering: The Agenda Advancement of the Far Right

The text of this death penalty bill is being finalized. According to the draft, convictions for fatal terrorist attacks in Israeli military courts, which specifically try Palestinians in the West Bank, will carry a mandatory death sentence. Following a mandatory appeal, the convicted will be hanged within 90 days. In regular Israeli courts, the death penalty may be applied within an equally short timeframe, but it is not mandatory. The bill's stated purpose is to protect Israel, its citizens and residents, enhance deterrence against enemies, reduce the motivation for kidnapping or hostage-taking aimed at negotiating the release of terrorists, and provide retribution for criminal acts.

The Jewish Power Party proposed this bill in early 2023. After the October 7 attacks, the legislative process was temporarily suspended because security officials warned that it could jeopardize efforts to bring back 251 hostages (including both living and deceased). These individuals were held by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. Last year, Jewish Power Party leader and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was one of the few ministers who voted against the U.S.-brokered Gaza ceasefire agreement. That agreement exchanged the release of the final group of hostages for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees, about 250 of whom were serving life sentences or long-term imprisonment, many convicted of killing Israelis. Ben-Gvir stated that he opposes all hostage deals.

Subsequently, the Jewish Power Party threatened to withdraw from the government if the death penalty legislation was not put to a vote. When the bill passed its first reading last November, Ben-Gvir distributed candy in parliament to celebrate. Party lawmakers began wearing golden noose-shaped pins. Another sponsor of the bill within the party, lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech, shared her personal experience in parliament. In 2003, she and her husband, who lived in a West Bank settlement, were attacked by Palestinian gunmen while in their car. Her husband was killed, and she was injured, leading to an emergency cesarean section. She explained that one of the perpetrators who killed her husband had been released in a previous prisoner exchange deal to secure the return of a captured Israeli soldier. She claimed that this individual later commanded a fatal attack on another Israeli and participated in the October 7 attacks, ultimately being killed during the Gaza war.

Analysts point out that in an election year, promoting this bill offers dual political benefits for Ben-Gvir and his party. Arab-Israeli lawmaker Aida Touma-Suleiman of the opposition Hadash party believes this is a win-win situation. If the law passes, it will cater to their voter base; if the Supreme Court later overturns the law, they can use it to accuse the judiciary of overstepping its authority and reinforce the right-wing camp's narrative. As part of the government, the Jewish Power party has been taking measures to try to weaken the court's authority.

Legal and Ethical Controversies: Racialized Punishment and Conflicts with International Law

Israel has carried out the death penalty only twice in its history for convicted prisoners. The last time was over sixty years ago, when the notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was hanged. Prior to that, in June 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, Captain Meir Tobianski was executed for treason after a summary military tribunal trial; he was later posthumously exonerated. Israeli law does include provisions for the death penalty for certain crimes, but military courts have rarely sentenced convicted terrorists or enemy combatants to death in the past, with all such cases being commuted to life imprisonment upon appeal. The Eichmann case was an exception: this SS lieutenant colonel, one of the architects of the Holocaust, was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina in 1960 and subsequently underwent a lengthy public trial in a special court in Jerusalem.

Opponents of the death penalty refute it from religious, ethical, and legal perspectives, arguing that it violates Jewish law, infringes on the right to life, and carries the risk of executing innocent individuals. Tal Steiner, Executive Director of the Israeli human rights organization Hamoked, pointed out: The fact that we are even revisiting the discussion of reintroducing it into Israel's legal system is itself a low point. Moreover, our objection lies in the fact that this law is designed along ethnic lines—it applies only to Palestinians and never to Jews; it applies only to those who kill Israeli citizens and never, for example, to Israeli citizens who kill Palestinians. The motive is clear.

Bill supporters attempt to downplay racial allegations. Zvika Fogel insists: My bill discusses terrorists and acts of terrorism; there is no discrimination here. The definition is very clear. Indeed, I believe there is no such thing as a Jewish terrorist or Jewish acts of terrorism. This is a legal definition. I have not taken any other path. Dr. Valentina Gusak, a bereaved mother supporting the bill, presented a photo of her 21-year-old daughter Margarita while addressing the National Security Committee. Margarita aspired to study medicine like her parents and was killed alongside her boyfriend Simon Vigodgos in 2023 while fleeing the Nova music festival. Dr. Gusak compared the reinstatement of the death penalty to preventive treatment, arguing it could have saved her daughter's life and serves as a vaccine against the next murder.

Meanwhile, another parliamentary committee is drafting a separate bill aimed at establishing specialized military tribunals for members of the Hamas Nukhba forces involved in the October 7 attacks. They are expected to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, much like Eichmann did sixty years ago. Those convicted may also face the death penalty. The UN Committee Against Torture stated late last year that it was deeply concerned about reports of a de facto state policy of organized and widespread torture and abuse against Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons. The committee noted that such allegations have intensified significantly following the 2023 attacks. Israel has denied these accusations. A recent article on the Israeli news site Walla reported that over the past two and a half years, under the policies of Ben-Gvir, a record 110 Palestinian security detainees have died.

Deterrence Logic and Security Reality: A Historical Examination of Policy Effectiveness

Supporters use deterrence as a core argument. Fogel claims: No (more) prisoners will be released. For prisoners convicted of murder, the death penalty will be imposed, so there will be no prisoners available for exchange. This will prevent hostages from being taken as bargaining chips. However, historically, Israeli security agencies have been among the main opponents of such measures, asserting that they escalate tensions and are not an effective deterrent. The reality is that many Palestinians who carried out fatal attacks against Israelis have been killed by security forces or armed civilians during the process. Data shows that since October 7, conflicts in the West Bank have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians.

The deeper reason is that the debate over the death penalty bill occurs within the broader context of a regional security crisis. According to data from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, over 71,600 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza war. This war was triggered by an attack two years ago that resulted in approximately 1,200 deaths. Many observers believe that Israeli public sentiment has shifted toward supporting harsher punishments. However, Tuma-Suleiman warned lawmakers to respond cautiously, stating of Ben-Gvir: He is fueling the existing sentiments of revenge and anger in society. But you cannot rely on the instinct for revenge to run legislation and courts.

From a strategic perspective, the bill has also raised questions about whether it violates international treaties signed by Israel. Opponents argue that if the legislation passes two additional parliamentary votes and becomes law, Supreme Court judges are likely to strike it down. This, in turn, could trigger a new constitutional conflict between the government and the judiciary, as the current administration has consistently sought to limit the latter's authority. The debate surrounding the death penalty has essentially become a microcosm of the tensions within Israel regarding the rule of law, national security, and national identity.

Regional Impact and Future Trends: Prolongation of the Legal Battle

The impact of this legislative battle will extend far beyond the Israeli Knesset. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority has already condemned the bill as racist and escalatory. If the bill is passed and implemented, any Palestinian sentenced to death by a military court would become a potential political martyr, likely further fueling resistance sentiments and creating insurmountable legal barriers for future prisoner exchanges. In effect, this unilaterally shuts down the traditional channel for resolving hostage crises through negotiations.

Meanwhile, the establishment of military courts specifically for trying members of the Nukhba forces signifies Israel's attempt to classify the October 7 attacks as a historic crime comparable to the Nazi Holocaust, thereby establishing an absolute narrative of legal and moral condemnation. This approach of historicizing and absolutizing the current conflict may make any future political reconciliation even more difficult. The racial targeting of the bill—applying only to Palestinians—will also provide new concrete examples for the international community to criticize Israel's legal system in the occupied territories, exacerbating Israel's diplomatic isolation.

Analysts point out that even if the bill ultimately fails to become law or is rejected by the Supreme Court, the political forces pushing it have already achieved some of their goals: consolidating the right-wing voter base, placing the issue of tough justice at the center of the public agenda, and successfully legitimizing a security narrative based on deterrence and revenge against the backdrop of unresolved social trauma. This reflects the ongoing rightward shift in Israel's political spectrum after the war, and its impact will gradually manifest in future elections, social cohesion, and the dynamics of regional conflicts.

The legislators in Jerusalem are drafting not merely an amendment to the criminal law, but a political declaration on how to define justice, security, and the enemy in the wake of profound trauma. Its fate will reveal the choices this nation makes at the crossroads.

Reference materials

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clymp8v7ye2o

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vaccine-against-murder-israel-split-060945630.html