Israel’s parliament voted Monday to mandate the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of deadly acts of terrorism, a measure that passed 62-47 and drew immediate condemnation from the European Union and the United Nations, but strong backing from lawmakers who framed the bill as a direct consequence of the October 7, 2023, massacre.
The legislation, advanced by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party, prescribes death by hanging as the default sentence. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cast his vote in favor during the opening assembly of the Knesset’s winter session in Jerusalem, Fox News reported.
It marks only the second time in Israel’s history that the state has moved to apply capital punishment. The first and only execution was that of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1962. Until now, Israeli courts had limited latitude to impose execution beyond cases involving Nazi-era atrocities.
Supporters said the law responds to a security reality that the old framework could not handle. Otzma Yehudit lawmaker Tzvika Foghel, who chairs the National Security Committee and shepherded the bill through that body, told Fox News Digital that Israelis are done with policies of containment and compromise.
“For too many years, we have tried to please the entire world, even when we were being murdered in our streets. Since October 7, we have shifted to an offensive approach so that we can dictate the reality in the future.”
Foghel drew a direct line to the Holocaust, calling the penalty for terrorists who “burned, raped, mutilated and abused children and parents” the same punishment Israel established for the Nazis.
Likud lawmaker Dan Illouz made the deterrence argument in sharper terms. He told Fox News Digital that October 7 exposed the danger of allowing terrorists to view kidnapping civilians as a path to securing the release of imprisoned militants.
“The death penalty shatters that equation. It serves as the ultimate deterrent, ensuring that terrorists know their actions lead only to their own demise, not a negotiated release. We are a life-loving nation, but to protect life, we must deal decisively with those who seek to destroy it.”
Illouz also praised Netanyahu’s personal vote, calling it “an unmistakable message of strength and moral clarity from the very top of Israel’s leadership.”
The bill makes death by hanging the default sentence in military courts for non-Israeli residents of the West Bank convicted of intentionally killing a person in an act of terrorism, unless a military court finds special circumstances warranting life imprisonment instead, Just The News reported. The legislation is scheduled to take effect within 30 days.
The law also limits appeals, removes clemency and pardon options, and requires execution within 90 days of a final verdict, or 180 days if the prime minister authorizes a delay, Breitbart reported, citing international reaction to the measure.
Likud lawmaker Amit Halevi told Fox News Digital that the bill draws a clear line between ordinary criminal offenses and ideological mass violence.
“A [terrorist commits his crimes] as part of an ideology aimed at killing, oppressing and controlling all Jews. These terrorists, if they could, would kill every one of us. They are ideological murderers, in a different category from ordinary criminals, and that is a critical point of the bill.”
Halevi acknowledged that further legislative work is needed to delineate crimes against the state but called the measure “a step in the right direction.”
The international reaction was swift and predictable. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said the EU holds “a principled position against the death penalty in all cases and in all circumstances.” She called the bill “a grave regression” from Israel’s longstanding de facto moratorium on executions and expressed concern about what she termed “the de facto discriminatory character of the Bill.”
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk went further. He said applying the law to residents of the occupied Palestinian territory “would constitute a war crime” and called the measure “deeply discriminatory.”
Israel’s Association of Civil Rights has already petitioned the country’s highest court to strike down the legislation. The Associated Press reported the group described the law as “discriminatory by design,” and legal experts expect a court challenge before the measure takes effect.
The EU’s moral authority on the question is worth examining. Brussels lectures Israel about capital punishment while offering no alternative framework for deterring the kind of mass-casualty terrorism that killed 1,200 people on October 7. Kallas praised Israel for “leading by example in the region”, a region where Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah operate with no regard for international legal norms. The suggestion that Israel should absorb repeated attacks on its civilians while maintaining a moratorium that its enemies interpret as weakness is a position easy to hold from a continent that does not face the same threat.
Not all opposition came from abroad. Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who leads the centrist Yesh Atid party, voted against the measure and attacked it as a political stunt.
“This law is not a show of force; it is a sign of panic. This law is more extreme than anything in the United States, and they know it will get struck down by the law. It isn’t a law for justice or for deterrence, it is a law for public relations.”
Lapid argued the legislation is fundamentally flawed because it does not apply to Hamas terrorists directly involved in the October 7 massacre. That is a legitimate procedural objection. But his framing, that a death penalty for convicted terrorists amounts to “panic”, is a hard sell to Israeli families who buried loved ones after the worst attack on Jewish civilians since the Holocaust.
Israeli Channel 12 political commentator Amit Segal offered a more nuanced critique from the right. Segal wrote that he supports “executing terrorists who attempt to murder civilians, especially the monsters of October 7” but called Ben Gvir’s version of the bill “essentially a campaign stunt.”
Segal flagged a definitional problem: the law defines terrorism as acts “to negate the existence of the state,” a phrase he warned could theoretically apply to groups beyond Palestinian militants, including extremist Haredi factions and violent members of the “Hilltop Youth”, a movement Ben Gvir himself has supported.
Segal pointed to what he called a more responsible alternative already working through the system. That bill, proposed by MKs Simcha Rotman and Yulia Malinovsky, would establish procedural and evidentiary mechanisms to secure convictions of Nukhba terrorists specifically, after which the death penalty could be imposed. The distinction matters: one bill is broad and politically charged; the other is built for courtroom use.
Foghel framed the legislation as part of Israel’s posture across multiple fronts, Gaza, Lebanon, Judea and Samaria, Yemen, and Iran. The bill passed against the backdrop of an ongoing conflict that has tested Israeli society’s tolerance for the status quo on terrorism and prisoner exchanges.
Ben Gvir himself put it bluntly. “From today, every terrorist will know, and the whole world will know, that whoever takes a life, the State of Israel will take their life,” he said after the vote.
Knesset member Limor Son Har-Melech added: “Whoever chooses to murder Jews because they are Jews forfeits their right to live.”
Whether the law survives judicial review remains an open question. Israel’s Supreme Court has historically been willing to strike down Knesset legislation it deems unconstitutional, and Lapid predicted exactly that outcome. The Association of Civil Rights has already filed its challenge. The 30-day implementation window means the legal fight will begin almost immediately.
The EU, the U.N., and domestic opponents all share a common blind spot. They treat this legislation as if it emerged in a vacuum, a sudden lurch toward extremism by a right-wing government. It did not. It emerged after October 7, after 1,200 people were killed, after a terrorist organization demonstrated that it would use hostage-taking as leverage to free convicted killers.
The deterrence debate is legitimate. Reasonable people can disagree about whether capital punishment prevents terrorism. But the international community’s reflex, condemning Israel for responding to mass atrocity while offering nothing beyond statements of concern, is not a serious policy position. It is moral preening dressed up as diplomacy.
Israel’s courts will have their say. The procedural questions Segal and others raised deserve answers. But the basic principle, that a sovereign nation facing existential terrorism has the right to impose the severest penalties on those who carry it out, should not require an apology to Brussels or Geneva.
A country that has executed exactly one person in its 77-year history is not on a reckless path. It is a country that got the message of October 7 and decided the old rules no longer apply.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.