Racist and unlawful: Israel’s death penalty law is driven by bloodlust

The Knesset National Security Committee voting to move the death penalty law for second and third readings, March 2026

Mordechai Kremnitzer writes in Haaretz on 31 March 2026:

In recent years, the Knesset has been working to advance the judicial overhaul, doing so with increased intensity in recent weeks by exploiting the state of war with Iran.

This includes the revival of the death penalty, which holds a special place of honor, or more precisely, dishonor, in completely severing Israel’s remaining humanistic and liberal values.

In the democratic-liberal world, the abolition of the death penalty is considered one of the greatest achievements of the post-World War II era. Israel joined this trend in two ways: by abolishing the death penalty for murder, which it inherited from British Mandatory Palestine, and replacing it with mandatory life imprisonment in 1954; and by a consistent policy of the prosecution and the courts to avoid using the death penalty, except for Nazi crimes.

Our law books contain quite a few offenses punishable by death, for crimes against humanity and against the Jewish people, for the most severe offenses against state security, for terror offenses, for the most severe offenses by soldiers under the Military Justice Law, and for murder committed in the West Bank by those who are not Israeli citizens or residents.

But as mentioned, except for Nazi crimes, the legal system was characterized by rendering the death penalty on the books a dead letter. The gap in Israel between the death penalty in the law books and its non-enforcement in reality was not just due to judicial restraint, but also unequivocal security assessments that pointed to the lack of evidence for a deterrent effect of the death penalty in the face of terror.

In fact, assessments pointed to the likelihood that the death penalty may actually encourage terror acts that confer shahid (martyrdom) status, social glorification of those executed, severe incidents during the arrest of suspects and the risk of death for Israeli hostages.

Indeed, there were days when security officials provided professional opinions to the government and the Knesset, and did not settle for a faint, unsubstantiated voice of non-opposition to the law. There was once a Knesset that did not legislate until a professional foundation of data, research and expert opinions was laid before it. It was, and is no more.

Enlightened governance has been replaced by ignorant governance. As required by the principle of legality in criminal law, the law looks to the future and does not apply to acts committed before it entered into force. However, it also carries a message for the future.

This refers to Gazans detained as involved in the October 7 massacre. Should they be charged with capital offenses, it is reasonable to assume that the new approach to the death penalty will be applied to them – no longer a dead letter, but a noose around the necks of the convicted.

The old Israel used to pride itself on restraint. The new Israel – one where Ben-Gvir and Smotrich set the tone – is doing the exact opposite. It seeks to replace restraint with a thirst for blood, provided it is not Jewish blood. The old approach stemmed from universal and Jewish morality. The deliberate killing of a person when they can be punished in other ways is an extremely cruel act.

From this perspective, the new law is a great achievement for Jewish terror organizations. One of their goals is to narrow the moral gap between themselves and the illicit means they employ, and the state they are fighting. The Knesset of Israel comes and gives them a gift.

It is also interesting to note that out of the few cases where the death penalty was imposed in Israel, two turned out to be errors. This was the case with Meir Tobianski, who was sentenced to death by a field court-martial and executed, and whose name was later cleared of the charges attributed to him.

This was also the case with John Demjanjuk, who was convicted by the District Court and sentenced to death, but acquitted on appeal due to reasonable doubt regarding his identity, whether he was indeed “Ivan the Terrible” from Treblinka. Had the archives of the Soviet intelligence services not been opened, it is highly doubtful that Demjanjuk would have been acquitted.

The risk of error increases under a public atmosphere steeped in a thirst for revenge and the dehumanization of Palestinians. The new law does everything to ensure that the margin of error grows: it abolishes the requirement in military courts in the West Bank for unanimous decisions on conviction and sentencing, settling for a majority vote.

The initiators of the law also found a way to make sure it could not, heaven forbid, apply to Jews: in the definition of the murder offense, it was stipulated that the purpose of the murder is the denial of the existence of the State of Israel. As for the offense of murder in the West Bank, which would be tried in a military court, only Palestinian residents are tried in those courts.

The legislators of this law know that the nauseating concoction they produced will not withstand judicial review, but this does not deter them. First, there is no knowing how long it will take for a judicial decision to be rendered. Second, if the High Court of Justice intervenes, it will be possible to claim that it is responsible for terror attacks. Third, it will be possible to accuse the court of thwarting the will of the people, and therefore a different court is needed – one that fulfills the will of the people, whatever the moral nature of that will may be.

The death penalty has become a litmus test for classifying a country’s regime as enlightened or regressive. Israel is confidently marching into the second club while pretending to belong to the first. This pretense has ceased to be convincing. The damage to Israel’s standing and its relations with the liberal West is evident and expected to intensify.

One can assume that the prime minister did not know this in advance, as no one warned him. The death penalty symbolizes the disregard for human life, first and foremost, Arab life. This disregard manifests endlessly – including the treatment of those not involved in terror in Gaza, the transfer carried out with authority and permission in the West Bank, and discrimination against Arab citizens regarding protection.

As long as the government in Israel insists on Jewish supremacy and a clear distinction between Jewish blood and Palestinian blood, the disregard for human life cannot remain confined to one group.

It also seeps into the home group: in the government’s treatment of hostages, of victims who are not government supporters, of pioneers defending the country’s borders, and of soldiers. The government must not be allowed to exploit suffering.

It is said that when former MK Avraham Melamed of the religious-Zionist Mafdal party was a member of the Judicial Appointments Committee, he would ask every candidate for their opinion on the death penalty. A positive stance on the death penalty would disqualify the candidate. But now, we Israelis say: How fortunate we are, we Jews, to have our own state. Finally, we can erect gallows in our state and hang gentiles on them.

This article is reproduced in its entirety