Israel broke this Monday a legal taboo that had remained almost unaltered since the founding of the State. Under the din of the war against Iran and Hezbollah, the Israeli Parliament has approved the “death penalty for terrorists” law, an initiative that allows the use of the gallows for those who commit deadly attacks with the aim of threatening the country’s existence. With 62 votes in favor and 48 against, the law becomes the flagship of the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history, led by Benjamin Netanyahu who has ended up yielding to the demands of his far-right partners.
The approval takes place in an exceptional climate, with deputies voting in missile-protected chambers and a society still traumatized by the attacks of October 7, 2023. For its supporters, it is an act of “justice and deterrence” against enemies who do not value life; for its critics, it is a cynical political tool designed to mobilize voters ahead of the October elections, using the pain of terrorism victims.
The Ben Gvir Factor: Between Justice and the Electoral Campaign
Behind this legislative move lies the figure of Itamar Ben Gvir, Minister of National Security and leader of the ultraright Jewish Power party. For Ben Gvir, the approval is a personal victory and a fulfillment of his electoral promises. According to the minister, “whoever murders Jews will not keep breathing,” a statement that makes the law’s direction clear. Critics, however, argue that the law is a display of political cynicism designed to mobilize the electorate in the run-up to elections, exploiting the pain of terrorism victims.
The law establishes that the death penalty or life imprisonment will be the only possible penalties for those who cause the death of Israeli citizens with the intention of denying the existence of the State. The truth is that the practical application of the provision is expected to be complex: while civil courts will require specific majorities, in the West Bank’s military courts capital punishment will be the general rule for deadly attacks, unless judges find “special circumstances”.
A Law Under Siege by the Supreme Court
A few minutes after its approval, the judicial machinery has moved to block the law. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and several opposition MPs have already filed appeals before the Supreme Court, arguing that the measure is discriminatory and lacks legal authority, particularly in its application to the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Experts predict that the Court, a traditional defender of constitutional values, has good odds of striking down or sharply softening the text.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid has described the law as a “surrender to Hamas,” arguing that its sole objective is to trigger judicial nullification so that the Government can again blame the court for “tying the State’s hands.” This institutional tension between the Executive and the Judicial branch adds a new chapter of friction at a moment when the country needs internal cohesion to face external threats from Iran and its regional allies.
Ethics vs. Security: the Dilemma of a War-Footing Nation
The Knesset debate has reflected the deep moral divisions that run through Israel. Figures like Benny Gantz have appealed to Jewish and military ethics, asking what the country will become if it abandons its moral principles under the pressure of the conflict. “If we are not ethical, what will we be?” Gantz asked in a speech that resonated with the more moderate sectors. The reality is that strength and morality have historically been the two pillars of Israeli defense, and many fear that the gallows will weaken the latter.
On the other hand, former opponents of the measure, such as Deputy Moshe Saada, have changed their minds after the impact of October 7. The argument is that the current system allows terrorists to become “national heroes” in prisons, fueling cycles of kidnappings for prisoner exchanges. For this group, the death penalty is the only way to break the incentive of terrorism and ensure that the most brutal crimes receive the severest possible punishment.
International Consequences and Diplomatic Isolation
The passage of the law does not only have internal echoes. The European Union has already sent clear messages warning that implementing the death penalty would distance Israel from Western democratic standards and would have consequences for bilateral relations. At a moment when Israel needs international diplomatic support to manage the war with Iran, the imposition of the gallows could mean dangerous isolation.
The United States, for its part, has maintained a stance of “lack of pressure” up to now, a factor Netanyahu has used to give the law the green light and keep his coalition together. Yet the international community watches with concern how domestic Israeli politics radicalizes under the pressure of war, fearing that erosion of human rights will be a permanent collateral damage of the current escalation in the Middle East.
The Shadow of Eichmann Over the Knesset
Israel has only executed one person in its entire history: the Nazi Adolf Eichmann in 1962. That act was seen as a historical exception to a crime against humanity. To bring back the gallows now, for domestic terrorist offenses, marks a new era. The death penalty law is more than a penal rule; it is the symbol of a country that feels existentially threatened and that is willing to reexamine its legal foundations in order to survive.
The law’s future now rests in the hands of the Supreme Court judges. Meanwhile, the stain of controversy and the ethical debate will continue to divide a Israel that fights on two fronts: the military against external foes and the moral debate about its identity as a Jewish and democratic state. The gallows are ready, but it remains to be seen whether the strength of Israeli institutions will allow it to be used, or if it will remain merely a loud slogan in the history of emergency legislation.
