Death Penalty

by Sammy Stein (May 2026)

 

 

In March 2026, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, approved legislation expanding the potential use of the death penalty in terrorism related cases. The measure passed by a vote of 62–48 and represents one of the most significant changes to Israel’s approach to capital punishment since the state was founded in 1948.

Although the death penalty has long existed within Israeli law, it has been used only in extremely rare circumstances. The most notable example occurred in 1962, when Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was executed following his conviction for crimes against humanity and crimes against the Jewish people. Eichmann’s trial and execution remain the only instance in which Israel has carried out a civilian execution.

In the decades since, Israeli courts have technically retained the authority to impose the death penalty under certain statutes, particularly in cases involving genocide, war crimes, or acts of treason during wartime. In practice, however, successive governments and courts have been extremely reluctant to use it. Even in cases involving severe acts of terrorism, Israel has generally preferred long prison sentences, often multiple life terms, rather than capital punishment.

This restraint has frequently been cited as evidence of Israel’s cautious approach to this issue. For many years the subject remained politically sensitive and governments from across Israel’s political spectrum largely avoided introducing capital punishment into ordinary criminal law, even during periods of intense violence. Debates about its possible use periodically surfaced following particularly severe terrorist attacks, but proposals rarely progressed beyond the discussion stage.

This new legislation therefore represents a significant shift in that longstanding policy.

The proposal was advanced primarily by members of Israel’s governing coalition and strongly supported by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also backed the measure as it progressed through the Knesset. Supporters argued that the law was necessary to strengthen deterrence against terrorism and to send a clear message to those who deliberately target Israeli civilians.

Under the legislation, capital punishment becomes the presumptive sentence for certain acts defined as terrorism. The law focuses particularly on cases in which an individual intentionally causes death while declaring an ideological objective of undermining or eliminating the existence of the State of Israel.

In practical terms, the law is expected to operate primarily within the military court system in the West Bank. Palestinian residents in that territory are generally tried under a different legal framework from Israeli citizens and the legislation modifies procedures that previously applied within these courts.

One of the most notable changes concerns the judicial threshold required to impose the death penalty. Under previous rules, a panel of judges had to reach a unanimous decision before capital punishment could be imposed. The new legislation lowers that threshold, allowing a simple majority of judges to impose a death sentence.

Israeli civilian courts are also granted authority to apply the death penalty under similar criteria. However, many legal observers believe the law will mainly affect cases heard in the military court system, where most terrorism-related prosecutions involving Palestinian defendants take place.

Another important aspect of the legislation is the way it limits judicial discretion. The law defines capital punishment as the default sentence for qualifying offences, while life imprisonment remains possible only under unspecified special circumstances. Critics argue that the absence of a clear definition for those circumstances may create legal uncertainty and could lead to further legal challenges.

The legislation also sets out procedural details for how a death sentence would be carried out. According to the text of the law, executions would be conducted by hanging and should take place within ninety days of conviction, although limited delays may be permitted during the appeals process.

Supporters of the measure argue that these provisions are intended to strengthen deterrence and demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views deliberate acts of terrorism directed against civilians. Advocates frequently point to the long history of attacks against Israeli targets and maintain that existing penalties have not prevented further violence.

Some supporters also argue that individuals motivated by ideological extremism often expect to die or spend their lives in prison and therefore may not be deterred by conventional punishments. In their view, the introduction of the death penalty is intended to reinforce the message that acts of terrorism will carry the most severe consequences under Israeli law.

It is important to note that the law does not apply retroactively. This means the legislation does not apply to those involved in the Hamas assault on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which triggered the yet to be resolved war in Gaza.

Although the legislation refers broadly to acts committed with hostile intent against the state, its structure has prompted debate about how widely it could be applied. Some coalition members have argued that the wording could theoretically apply to Jewish perpetrators of terrorism if their actions meet the same legal definition.

In practice, however, many legal analysts believe this scenario is unlikely. The combination of jurisdictional differences and the types of cases typically prosecuted in military courts means the law will almost certainly apply primarily to Palestinian defendants accused of terrorism offences.

The legislation has generated significant debate within Israel’s political and legal communities. Israeli human rights organisations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, have raised concerns about equality before the law and due process. Critics have focused particularly on the law’s likely application within the military court system and its potential disproportionate impact on Palestinians.

Opposition politicians have also voiced strong criticism. Yair Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid party, argued that the law is flawed both in its intent and in its practical consequences. He described the legislation as ineffective and noted that it does not address some of the most prominent recent cases of terrorism, including those linked to Gaza or the October 7 attacks.

Not unexpectedly the legislation has also drawn criticism from foreign governments and international organisations. The European Union reiterated its longstanding opposition to capital punishment in all circumstances, describing the death penalty as incompatible with contemporary human rights standards.

Despite its progress through the Knesset, the law still faces several legal and practical hurdles before it can be implemented. A petition has already been submitted to Israel’s High Court of Justice and many legal analysts expect the Israeli Supreme Court to examine whether the legislation is compatible with Israel’s Basic Laws, particularly those relating to human dignity and equality before the law.

Opponents argue that aspects of the law, including its differential application across legal systems and the reduction of certain procedural safeguards, may conflict with these constitutional principles. Should the Court decide to intervene, this could significantly impact how this legislation is interpreted or possibly prevent its implementation altogether.

Israel’s long-standing reluctance to carry out executions may also act as a practical barrier. Even with the legal framework now in place, judges may exercise caution when applying the legislation, particularly given the international scrutiny that would likely accompany any future execution.

For these reasons, while the 2026 law represents a notable shift in Israel’s legal approach to terrorism related offences, its ultimate significance remains uncertain. Much will depend on judicial review, how Israel’s courts interpret its provisions and whether political leaders remain committed to enforcing it in practice.

 

Table of Contents

 

Sammy Stein was born a Jewish Palestinian, a description that causes much confusion with people. In 1948, he and all other Jewish Palestinians living in Palestine became Israeli citizens. He now lives in Glasgow and has two daughters, two grandchildren, and is married to Vicci. Sammy is Chair of Glasgow Friends of Israel, which celebrated its tenth anniversary in May 2025.

 

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast