Why Israel's death penalty law is a massive setback for human rights
Modern law is supposed to reflect a civilised society’s commitment to fundamental moral principles, and its aspirations to achieve justice and equality among its members.
Law must define the boundaries of society, indicate what is permitted and forbidden, and formulate the image of a world that respects human rights.
The Israeli Knesset has turned its back on these principles by enacting a law that imposes the death penalty on any Palestinian convicted of intentionally causing the death of a person in a “terrorist” act.
Israel has adopted the spirit of far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, abandoning its duty to protect those for whom it is responsible - whether they are citizens or subjects under occupation. It has thus legitimised using the law as a tool of state violence.
In recent decades, a clear global trend towards the reduction and abolition of the death penalty has prevailed. Most democratic countries have abolished capital punishment either by law or in practice, based on the understanding that it is a cruel, irreversible penalty incompatible with fundamental human rights.
As international law and global institutions encourage states to abandon the use of this punishment, its reintroduction in Israel marks a fundamental retreat from the accepted norms of the modern world.
In advancing the legislation, Israel’s National Security Committee dismissed more than 2,000 objections filed against the death-penalty bill. “We are in a period of historical opportunities and great successes,” Ben Gvir said.
Violating international law
The stated goal of the law is to increase deterrence, prevent attacks, and seek retribution for acts of sabotage. But global research has found no evidence that the death penalty deters potential perpetrators more than prison sentences, nor is there any link with lower crime rates. In addition, the perpetrators of operations carried out on ideological grounds might already be preparing for death.
The new Israeli law stipulates that Palestinians convicted of deadly “terrorism” in military courts receive a “mandatory” death sentence. This could be changed to life imprisonment in very narrow, exceptional circumstances.
In practice, Palestinians residing in the occupied territories are tried exclusively in military courts, while Israeli citizens, including settlers, are tried in civilian courts.
The new legislation conflicts with established principles of international law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights emphasises the right to life, noting that countries that have not yet abolished the death penalty must impose it only for the “most serious crimes”. The Second Optional Protocol to the treaty explicitly aims to abolish the death penalty.
Israel’s move thus represents a regression from the international human rights obligations undertaken by civilised nations.
In Israeli civilian courts, the new law stipulates that anyone who intentionally causes the death of another “with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel” shall be sentenced to either death or life imprisonment. Despite the ambiguous wording, it is clear that only Palestinian defendants - whether citizens of Israel, or residents of the occupied territories - will be covered by this definition.
This is because terrorism practised by Israeli Jews, often against Palestinians - the UN documented 2,660 settler attacks between January 2024 and September 2025 - is typically not carried out with the motive of “denying the existence of the State of Israel”.
By making the death penalty a discretionary decision in civilian courts, Israeli legislators are ensuring that even if a Jewish citizen were found guilty of committing an attack with a motive to deny the existence of Israel, they would not have to be executed.
Creating a hierarchy
As a default option for Palestinians under occupation, the death penalty will thus serve as a racist punishment based on national-ethnic background, fatally undermining the rights of Palestinians to life, dignity, due process and equality.
The law creates a hierarchy under which the violent nationalism of Palestinians against Jews is deemed more serious than any other type of violence, including nationalist violence by Jews against Palestinians.
The distinction between a mandatory death penalty in military courts and a discretionary one in civilian courts violates Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that all people “are equal before the law”. Establishing two different judicial systems based on national or ethnic origin is a flagrant violation of this principle, and may amount to apartheid.
The new law also contradicts the basic principle of any self-respecting legal system: granting independence to the judiciary to exercise discretion and impose appropriate penalties. It obliges military courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinians under occupation, with exceptions possible only in extraordinary circumstances.
Mandating the death penalty in such cases deprives the court of the ability to consider mitigating circumstances or the individual characteristics of the offender, making the punishment arbitrary, and violating the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, under this law, it will not be possible to grant a pardon after an offender is sentenced to death in a military court. This violates Article 75 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that those sentenced to death cannot be “deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve”.
Additionally, a simple majority of the judicial panel will suffice to issue a death sentence, rather than unanimity - and the penalty can be imposed even if prosecutors do not request it.
Discriminatory system
In addition to this terrible and irreversible blow to the right to life and equality, the new law mandates holding those on death row in a separate facility with no family visits, and restrictions on legal access.
Execution by hanging must be carried out within 90 days of sentencing, despite the lack of any urgent necessity justifying this timeline. This severely curbs the prisoner’s right to due process, including possible petitions for retrial, as is customary in other countries in accordance with international legal norms.
The risk of executing a single innocent person should be enough to reject this cruel and final punishment
Moreover, Israel’s judicial system, and particularly military courts in the occupied territories, have a reputation for discriminating against Palestinians.
The risk of executing a single innocent person should be enough to reject this cruel and final punishment. In the US, for example, more than 200 death row inmates have been exonerated since 1973.
Worldwide, the death penalty is imposed disproportionately on minorities and vulnerable groups, with authoritarian states using it as a tool to suppress dissent. Based on all of this, more than two-thirds of the world’s countries have chosen to abolish the death penalty in law or practice.
It is worth noting that the foreign ministers of Australia, Germany, France, Italy and the UK issued a joint statement expressing their “deep concern” about the Israeli legislation and its infringement on democratic principles. But such sentiments seem to have little influence on Israel’s decision-makers.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
This article was sourced from Middle East Eye.
Read Full Article on Middle East Eye →