Israel has reintroduced the death penalty for certain violent crimes. What at first glance appears to be a tough but general measure turns out, upon closer inspection, to be highly problematic. It is already becoming clear that in practice it will almost exclusively affect Palestinians.
The law introduces the death penalty for specific lethal acts classified as terrorism; in the West Bank section, it explicitly applies to “residents of the Area” while explicitly excluding Israeli citizens and Israeli residents.
Israel operates two separate legal systems: a civilian system for Israeli citizens and a military system for Palestinians in the occupied territories, particularly in the West Bank. These military courts now stand at the center of the new law. Reports by The Guardian and The Washington Post indicate that the death penalty is primarily intended to be applied there within a system that almost exclusively prosecutes Palestinians.
This has far-reaching consequences. While Israeli citizens continue to be tried in civilian courts, Palestinians could face significantly harsher and, in some cases, mandatory death sentences in military proceedings. In practice, the law becomes an instrument with a clear target.
This is precisely the core of the criticism. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International describe the law as discriminatory, arguing that it undermines fundamental principles of equality before the law. When two groups are subject to different legal systems and one of those systems now includes the death penalty profound inequality is inevitable.
International reactions have also been unusually strong. In a joint statement, several European countries, including Germany, France, and Italy, warned of a regression in the rule of law. The concern is no longer limited to opposition to the death penalty itself, but extends to the specific design of this law and its foreseeable consequences.
Particularly controversial is the role of the military courts themselves. These courts have long been criticized for limited defense rights, lack of transparency, and high conviction rates. Introducing the death penalty into this system significantly intensifies those concerns. A wrongful conviction in such a context is irreversible.
Celebration on the right and doubts about the law’s future
While international criticism grows, parts of the Israeli government have openly welcomed the law. The far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in particular, celebrated it as a long-overdue step. According to several reports, he described it as a “significant victory in the fight against terrorism.” In far-right political circles, the decision was openly celebrated, including applause in the Knesset. Ben-Gvir, who wore a pin shaped like a gallows, later said the law would “restore pride” to Israel. At the same time, Jewish voices such as those in the Jüdische Allgemeine have also strongly opposed the law.
Yet the celebration within the far-right camp rests on uncertain ground. The law could still fail legally. Israel’s Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down legislation deemed disproportionate or unconstitutional. In this case as well, many observers expect legal challenges. Criticism is coming not only from abroad and from NGOs, but also from parts of Israeli society itself.
This leaves the law in a fragile position: it has been passed, but is far from secure. Whether it will actually be implemented may ultimately depend on legal battles within Israel. In the end, what matters most is how and where the law is applied.
A law with political consequences
In a region already marked by constant political tension and deep-rooted ethnic conflict, this law risks becoming a tipping point. Rather than strengthening the rule of law, it raises fundamental questions about its integrity. The law carries a powerful political signal: that one group is being singled out and treated differently under the law.
