Even before approving a law that would introduce the death penalty for terrorists, Israeli lawmakers are already debating how people sentenced to capital punishment should be killed. Still, the most contentious part of the bill, which cleared its first reading with majority support, is not the method of execution but its inevitability. The draft leaves no option other than death for anyone found guilty of killing a Jew or preparing such an attack. Supporters argue that the bill’s passage would sharply reduce assaults by Palestinians against Israelis. However, critics call it racist — after all, the mandatory sentence would apply only to non-Jews.
On Nov. 10, Israel’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir brought a box of sweets to a Knesset session, handing them out to lawmakers who had supported amendments to the criminal code that would introduce a new standalone category of crime: the murder of Israelis motivated by “racism or hatred toward society” or committed with the aim of “harming the State of Israel or the revival of the Jewish people.”
Ben-Gvir’s distribution of candies underscored how important it was to him and his supporters that amendments make it through the first reading. The symbolic largesse was also a reference to the tradition of Palestinians marking successful attacks on Israelis by giving out sweets in the streets. The intended message conveyed by the minister’s gesture was perfectly clear: we are now like you; we will kill you and celebrate these killings as holidays.
The death penalty is not banned in Israel, but the procedure for approving it is extremely complicated.
Under the current law, it can be applied to Nazi criminals or their accomplices who were directly involved in the mass murder of Jews during World War II. It also applies to those found guilty of exceptionally grave offenses: treason, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
However, to take a person’s life through legal means, a death sentence must be approved by both a district court and an appellate court. It must also be endorsed by the president, who has the authority to commute a death sentence to a more lenient punishment.
Difficulties in issuing and approving a death sentence were one of the main reasons why only two people have been executed in Israel throughout its modern history. They were Meir Tuviyanski, an army captain accused of treason during the 1948 War of Independence, and Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official seized in Argentina and brought to Jerusalem, where he was convicted of playing a prominent role in the Holocaust. In the decades since Eichmann’s execution in 1961, Israel has neither issued nor carried out a death sentence.
In the decades since Eichmann’s execution in 1961, Israel has neither issued nor carried out a death sentence
At the same time, debates periodically flare up in the country about whether those found guilty of terrorism should be executed. This usually happens after attacks that kill soldiers or civilians. Yet such debates almost never go beyond calls for lawmakers and cabinet members to consider revising existing legislation.
One of the few exceptions was a bill drafted by members of the ultraright party Otzma Yehudit, which is led by the same Itamar Ben-Gvir who handed out sweets following its passage through the first stage in the legislative process. First submitted to the Knesset in the spring of 2023, the bill prescribed the death penalty for those found guilty of killing Jews or taking part in preparations for such a killing if a court determined that the motive was hatred of Israel or Jews. It offered no alternative to execution — death was declared the only possible punishment.
A central plank of Otzma Yehudit’s political platform is a categorical rejection of the very idea of a Palestinian state. The party calls for scrapping peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and supports the seizure of Arab land for the construction of Jewish settlements. Otzma Yehudit is seen not just as nationalist but as ultranationalist. A bill guaranteeing the execution of Palestinians for killing Jews is precisely what its voters expect from its lawmakers.
The bill’s introduction to the Knesset, its preliminary reading, and its approval for further parliamentary debate amounted to a concession by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who needed to stay on the good side of his ultraright partners in the ruling coalition. At the time, Netanyahu was trying to strip the Supreme Court of its independence by placing it under the control of the cabinet, but he faced mass protests and halted the push against the judiciary. The right wing was displeased with the delay and began to talk about leaving the coalition, a political decision that would have forced new elections. Submitting the “terrorists’ bill” to parliament became one of the gifts Netanyahu made to the right in exchange for their agreement not to bring down the government.
From the outset, the bill was met with strong opposition, and its authors were even accused of trying to establish a fascist dictatorship. Representatives of left-wing parties went so far as to warn that Palestinians might not be the only targets of the proposal and that Ben-Gvir and his allies might actually intend to use the law to go after the opposition.
Opposition parties accused the bill’s authors of trying to establish a fascist dictatorship
This latter claim could have been dismissed as political maneuvering by the socialists if not for the extremely broad interpretation of actions that, under the proposed amendments, would mandate the death penalty. The highest punishment would apply not only to those who directly carry out attacks, but also to those who assist in committing such crimes. This could include, for example, politicians who decide to release Palestinian militants or peaceful activists calling for an end to the war and the occupation. Nationalists clearly have such intentions, which is why left-wing parties, centrists, and even some lawmakers from religious factions were in no hurry to take up the bill.
Thanks to the fact that left-wing, centrist, and Arab parties were so opposed to the bill, it appeared likely the document would end up being buried in parliamentary committees under piles of other contentious proposals. That may well have happened — if not for Ben-Gvir’s persistence, and if not for the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023.
The national security minister used that atrocity to justify the need for the law and persuaded the government to approve his draft for a substantive vote in the Knesset. Ben-Gvir pressured colleagues, demanding they move to that vote as soon as possible.
But Netanyahu did not rush, apparently fearing immediate negative consequences. For example, Hamas could pull out of talks on returning Israeli hostages, and relations with European countries, already strained, could deteriorate further.
The release of hostages and the truce with Hamas in the fall of 2025 gave Ben-Gvir new leverage. He again threatened to collapse the coalition and force early elections, in which Netanyahu’s victory would have been far from assured. In the end the prime minister yielded and allowed parliament to consider the disputed amendments to criminal law in a first reading. The bill would almost certainly have failed if most opposition lawmakers had taken part in the vote. But they boycotted it en masse.
Of the Knesset’s 120 members, only 55 took part in the vote, and 39 backed the bill. That was enough for it to pass its first reading, since amendments to existing legislation do not require a quorum and are adopted by a simple majority.
Preparations are now underway for the second and third readings, which are needed in order to turn the bill into law. Judging by leaks in the media, the draft is accumulating new details. For the second reading, the document may include a ban on appeals for those found guilty of terrorism motivated by hatred of Israel or Jews, as well as a requirement that executions be carried out no later than 90 days after sentencing. Lawmakers are also discussing methods of execution — it appears they will settle on lethal injection.
For the second reading, the document may include a ban on appeals and a requirement to carry out executions no later than 90 days after sentencing
Itamar Ben-Gvir and his allies see their bill as the starting point for a new national security doctrine. At its core is the intention to send a clear message to potential attackers that they will have no chance of ever going free, let alone of taking part in new attacks.
The ultraright hopes their bill will put an end to prisoner exchanges between Israel and Palestinian groups. Often, such trades involve hundreds of Palestinians convicted of terrorism being released from prison in return for a single freed Israeli hostage.
Opponents of such exchanges argue that they encourage attackers by giving them a reasonable expectation of eventual release, even after committing a series of deadly crimes. Supporters of the bill believe that the severity and inevitability of punishment can cool the heads of Palestinian radicals and deter them from violence.
From the nationalists’ point of view, Palestinians almost willingly go to Israeli prisons, where they receive education and medical care at Israel’s expense while waiting to be exchanged for Jewish hostages. Nationalists argue that this must end.
“This is how we fight terror! This is how we create a tool of deterrence,” Ben-Gvir explained the concept behind the bill. “Once the law is finally passed, attackers will be released only to hell.”
At the same time, global experience shows that any link between harsher punishment and a reduction in serious crime is questionable at best. In American states where the death penalty is banned, the number of homicides per thousand residents is usually lower than in states where executions are still permitted.
European countries that have abolished capital punishment also report either a decline in violent crime or, at worst, no significant increase. There are, of course, exceptions: a drop in violent offenses recorded in several U.S. states in the early 2000s was attributed by some researchers to a fear of execution.
Contradictory statistics have given rise to two opposing sociological theories regarding the effect of capital punishment on the behavior of potential offenders. One argues that the threat of execution deters many who might otherwise break the law. The other claims that by legitimizing executions, the state signals disregard for human life and thereby encourages future killers to commit crimes. Neither theory has been conclusively proven. However, this has not stopped Israeli nationalists from insisting that executions will put an end to interethnic violence.
They now promise to put an end to exchanges by executing nearly everyone held in Israeli prisons. However, a simple look at the biographies of the Arab prisoners Israel released this year in return for Jewish hostages held by Hamas shows that neither mass executions nor a halt to exchanges should be expected in the event that the amendments are adopted.
As part of the Gaza ceasefire deal, this past October Israel freed 1,968 Palestinians, 250 of whom had been convicted of serious or especially serious crimes. It is important to note that serious and especially serious crimes include not only killings or preparations for attacks, but also weapons smuggling and assaults on Israelis that did not result in deaths. In other words, many of those who received long prison terms and were freed only as part of the deal with Hamas would not have fallen under the “nationalist amendments” — yet they were exchanged.
Of the 11,000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails in September 2025, only 2,662 were classified as members of illegal armed groups (and even this status does not mean a prisoner was involved in killings or the preparation of deadly attacks). Thus the nationalists’ promise to end exchanges in the most straightforward and bloodiest way — by executing those who might be freed in order to save hostages — is at best a serious exaggeration.
Of the 11,000 Palestinian prisoners held in September 2025, only 2,662 were classified as members of illegal armed groups
Even so, the proposed amendments have already sparked controversy. Amnesty International described the proposal’s clear focus on punishing Palestinians as part of Israel’s ongoing apartheid policy and called on Knesset members to withhold their support. Palestinian groups issued similar statements.
Foreign governments have so far avoided publicly condemning the amendments, and for understandable reasons. For now the proposal looks like a rather marginal initiative from a far-from-popular parliamentary party that passed its first reading with minimal support. In other words, many opponents of the bill have determined that it is too early to sound the alarm.
It is possible that the amendments not only fail to gain new supporters, but that they also lose some who backed the initial version. That could include lawmakers from religious parties, provided that the leaks are accurate and the second reading introduces clauses banning appeals and requiring sentences to be carried out as quickly as possible. Such provisions would contradict the Torah’s prohibition on killing an innocent person, as the absence of an appeal and the rapid execution of a sentence leave ample room for judicial error — a particularly sensitive issue for Israel. The first person executed in the country’s modern history (the aforementioned Captain Tuvyansky) was shot on the orders of an incompetent military court and had no opportunity to challenge its verdict. It soon became clear that the officer had not committed the crimes he stood accused of.
The first person executed in Israel in its modern history was shot by order of an incompetent military court and had no way to appeal its decision
At the same time, support for the bill from Prime Minister Netanyahu and the noticeable rise in anti-Palestinian sentiment in Israel after 2023 give the amendments at least some chance of making it all the way through parliament, even if to achieve that the bill will have to be significantly softened. Most likely, by the third reading — provided it makes it that far — the document will lose its openly racist provisions while lifting the ban on appeals and the requirement to carry out executions no later than 90 days after sentencing.
In that case, the Israeli authorities would gain a fairly powerful tool for countering Palestinian groups. Such a legislative shift would not put an end to prisoner exchanges, and it would provide those sentenced to death a chance to preserve their lives by winning an appeal or receiving a presidential pardon. Unlike the draft submitted by Ben-Gvir’s forces, that one sounds like a law that might actually be able to pass the Knesset.