How Israel Made the Death Penalty Legal for Palestinians and Impossible for Israels

date

March 31, 2026

I. The Law Itself: What Was Passed

The legislation, advanced by Ben-Gvir's Otzma Yehudit party and Likud MK Nissim Vaturi, was approved in its second and third readings on March 30. Its final wording reflects a compromise: Prime Minister Netanyahu pushed for softer language to address concerns about constitutionality and international law. But the core of the bill remains what its sponsors intended: a death penalty designed for Palestinians.

Under the law, the death penalty is the default punishment for any Palestinian convicted of a "terrorist" act that kills a person, provided the act was carried out "with the intent to deny the existence of the State of Israel." Courts may impose a life sentence instead only if they find "special reasons" or "special circumstances." Courts may impose the death penalty even if prosecutors do not request it. A unanimous judicial decision is not required.

The law applies in the West Bank, where Palestinians are tried in military courts. It does not apply to Israelis who kill Palestinians. Those cases are handled in civilian courts, where the death penalty has been effectively abolished since 1954 and has not been carried out since the execution of Adolf Eichmann in 1962.

The law does not apply to Hamas fighters who participated in the October 7, 2023, attack. A separate bill is being advanced for them. This means that the Palestinians most likely to face execution under this law are not those who crossed into Israel on October 7, but those in the West Bank—where 96 percent of cases in military courts end in conviction, and where confessions are routinely extracted under torture.

II. The Numbers: What Is Already Known

The law did not emerge from a vacuum. It emerged from a system.

As of November 2025, more than 9,250 Palestinians were held in Israeli prisons, according to Palestinian prisoner rights groups. Of those, 3,368 were held under administrative detention—imprisoned without charge, without trial, without evidence shown to them or their lawyers. They are held on the basis of "secret files" that neither they nor their attorneys are permitted to see. Israel is the only country in the world that systematically practices this policy.

Fifty-two Palestinian women were in Israeli prisons as of November 2025. Three hundred fifty minors. One prisoner from Gaza. And now, for a portion of the 1,242 sentenced prisoners, the possibility of execution has become law.

The Israel Prison Service has already begun preparing designated execution facilities, according to the human rights group B'Tselem. The machinery of death is being assembled.

III. The Voices of Those Who Will Be Affected

The law is not abstract. It targets specific people, by name, by identity, by nationality.

Sabreen Shahrouri is the sister of Muammar Shahrouri, a 46-year-old prisoner from Tulkarm. Her brother was arrested in 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 30 years for his role in planning a bombing in Netanya that killed 29 Israelis. He has been in solitary confinement for more than two years. He has been repeatedly beaten, leaving him with multiple fractures. He has been denied treatment for rheumatism since 2023. According to his lawyer, prison guards have set dogs on him inside his cell, leaving him bleeding.

"I'm afraid to read the news every morning, fearing I'll find his name among those killed under torture," Shahrouri told Middle East Eye. "This is an execution of their souls before their bodies."

She is not alone. Across the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, families of Palestinian prisoners are living in fear. Their loved ones—already held in conditions that human rights groups have described as torture—now face the possibility of state execution.

IV. The Voices of Israel: What Officials Said

The architects of the law did not hide their intentions. They celebrated them.

Ben-Gvir welcomed the passage of the law with a statement: "The State of Israel is changing the rules of the game today: whoever murders Israelis will not continue to breathe and enjoy conditions in prison. This is a day of justice for the victims and a day of deterrence for our enemies."

The phrase "whoever murders Jews" is significant. It does not say "whoever murders Israelis." It says Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel who kill Israelis would be subject to the law. Jewish settlers who kill Palestinians would not.

Ben-Gvir's statement reflects the law's fundamental structure: it is a law about identity, not about acts. It punishes Palestinians who kill Israelis. It does not punish Israelis who kill Palestinians.

In the Knesset, before the vote, Justice Ministry representative attorney Lilach Wagner warned that establishing the death penalty in the West Bank through civilian legislation is "very problematic." IDF representatives warned that the law contradicts international treaties to which Israel is signatory. The Foreign Ministry said the amendments do not fully address the political and legal difficulties the law raises internationally. The National Security Council also expressed opposition.

These warnings were ignored.

V. The Voices of the World: What European Nations Said

The international response came quickly, and it came in unison.

On March 29, the day before the vote, the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement. They said they were "particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill." They warned that its adoption "would risk undermining Israel's commitments with regard to democratic principles."

They used the word "discriminatory." That is diplomatic language. What they meant is that the law treats Palestinians and Israelis differently under the same legal system.

Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset went further. In letters to the Speaker of the Knesset and the President of Israel, he expressed "deep concern" and urged Israeli authorities to abandon the proposals. He noted that the death penalty is incompatible with fundamental human rights and that any application characterized as discriminatory is "unacceptable in a state governed by the rule of law."

Ireland's Foreign Minister Helen McEntee criticized the legislation's discriminatory implications and reaffirmed opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances. Italy's Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said the European nations had called on Israel to withdraw the bill, stressing that the death penalty violates human dignity.

The message was clear: Europe, which has its own dark history with discriminatory laws, recognized what was happening.

VI. The Voices of the World: What the United Nations Said

The United Nations did not wait for the vote to speak.

In February, a group of UN experts urged Israel to withdraw the legislation, warning that "mandatory death sentences are contrary to the right to life." They raised concerns over the proposed use of hanging, saying it would "amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law." They warned that the measure could be applied in a discriminatory manner against Palestinians.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese condemned the law before its passage. After the vote, the UN human rights office called for the law to be repealed, reiterating its opposition to capital punishment and warning that its application would breach prohibitions against cruel and discriminatory treatment.

The independent experts, mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, noted that the law introduces two tracks for the death penalty in Israel: one for Palestinians, one for Israelis. In the West Bank, they said, the death penalty would be imposed by military courts for terrorist acts causing death, even if not intended. In Israel and occupied East Jerusalem, capital punishment would continue to apply only under Israeli criminal law and only for the intentional killing of Israeli citizens or residents.

Two tracks. One system for Palestinians. Another for Israelis.

VII. The Voices of Human Rights: What the Experts Said

Human rights organizations have been documenting Israel's dual legal system for years. This law, they say, is not an aberration. It is the logical conclusion of decades of policy.

B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, called the bill "another official killing mechanism" that will further normalize the slaughter of Palestinians. In a statement, the group wrote: "Israel enforces a comprehensive policy of killing and oppression against the Palestinian people in all the territories it controls. The Death Penalty Law gives Israel's apartheid regime yet another tool for advancing that policy."

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel filed the first petition against the law, arguing that it "creates an inverse relationship between the severity of the death penalty and the ease with which it can be imposed." The group emphasized that the law is intended to apply only to Palestinians by establishing two separate frameworks—military and civilian. "Each of these frameworks, on its own, severely harms the rights to life, dignity, due process, and equality; the differences between them deepen the harm and discrimination."

Amnesty International condemned the move as a stark display of discrimination and disregard for human rights, linking it to a broader pattern of alleged unlawful killings and lack of accountability.

The International Centre for Justice for Palestinians condemned the bill as an "extreme escalation in Israel's genocidal policies against Palestinians." "The progression of the legislation marks not just a profoundly unjust and illegal act of discrimination under international law, but a far more sinister escalation of Israel's apartheid legal systems," the center wrote.

Several Israeli rights groups—including Adalah, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), HaMoked, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHRI)—issued a joint statement calling the legislation "among the most extreme and dangerous legislative measures ever proposed by Israel against Palestinians." They said the proposal would establish a "discriminatory punitive framework," denying Palestinians equal protection under the law, fair trial rights, and safeguards against torture and inhuman treatment.

VIII. The Comparison: Apartheid Defined

The word "apartheid" is used deliberately. It is not hyperbole. It is a legal term with a specific definition under international law.

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the United Nations in 1973, defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

Under this definition, apartheid consists of specific acts, including: denial of the right to life and liberty of persons; imposition of living conditions designed to cause physical destruction; legislative measures designed to divide the population along racial lines; and persecution of organizations and persons by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The law passed on March 30, 2026, fits this definition. It denies Palestinians the right to life by establishing a mandatory death penalty that applies only to them. It imposes living conditions designed to cause physical destruction—conditions that human rights groups have documented in Israeli prisons for decades. It divides the population along national lines, with one legal system for Israelis and another for Palestinians. And it persecutes Palestinians by depriving them of fundamental rights—including the right to equal protection under the law—that are guaranteed to Israelis.

The comparison to South Africa is not incidental. Under South African apartheid, there were two legal systems: one for white South Africans, one for Black South Africans. The death penalty was applied disproportionately to Black offenders. The pass laws, the forced removals, the denial of citizenship—all were justified under a legal framework that claimed to be neutral but was, in fact, designed to maintain white domination.

Israel's system is different in its details but identical in its structure. In the West Bank, Palestinians live under military law. Jewish settlers living next to them live under Israeli civilian law. Palestinians are tried in military courts, where conviction rates exceed 96 percent. Settlers are tried in civilian courts, where they are rarely convicted and almost never imprisoned. Palestinians can be held indefinitely without charge under administrative detention. Settlers cannot.

The law passed on March 30 codifies this dual system in the starkest possible terms: Palestinians may be executed. Israels may not.

IX. The Hypothetical: If This Happened Elsewhere

To understand the significance of this law, it is necessary to ask a question that should not need to be asked: what would the world say if this happened elsewhere?

Imagine if a European country passed a law mandating the death penalty for Muslims convicted of terrorism, but not for Christians. Imagine if that law specified that the death penalty could be imposed even if prosecutors did not request it, and that judges did not need to be unanimous. Imagine if the country's parliament celebrated with champagne and noose pins.

The response would be immediate. Sanctions would follow. The country would be ostracized. Its leaders would be condemned in every international forum. There would be no ambiguity, no equivocation, no parsing of diplomatic language.

Now imagine if an Arab country passed a law mandating the death penalty for Israelis. The world's response would be instantaneous and total. It would be called what it is: state-sponsored antisemitism. It would be condemned as barbaric. There would be no debate about "complexities" or "security concerns."

But when Israel does the same thing—when it passes a law that mandates execution for Palestinians and makes it impossible for Israelis to face the same punishment—the response is different. There are statements of concern. There are expressions of deep worry. There are calls to reconsider. But there are no sanctions. There is no ostracism. There is no international consensus that what has happened is fundamentally incompatible with membership in the community of nations.

The Council of Europe's response is instructive. The organization noted that Israel abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes in 1954 and has not carried out an execution since 1962. It expressed "deep concern" that the new law represents a "serious regression." It said that any discriminatory application is "unacceptable in a state governed by the rule of law." It said it would "examine its implications for the Council of Europe conventions to which Israel is a party."

But Israel is not a member of the Council of Europe. It holds observer status. The consequences of this law for Israel's relationship with Europe will be measured in diplomatic notes and parliamentary statements, not in sanctions or suspension.

This is the double standard that has long defined international responses to Israel. When Israel does what other countries would be condemned for, it is met with concern rather than consequences. When it passes a law that formalizes apartheid, it is met with expressions of worry rather than demands for accountability.

X. The Palestinian Response: What the Law Means for Those Under Occupation

Palestinian officials and political factions responded to the law with clarity and fury.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the legislation as a breach of international law and a doomed bid meant to intimidate Palestinians. "Such laws and measures will not break the will of the Palestinian people or undermine their steadfastness," his office said in a statement. "Nor will they deter them from continuing their legitimate struggle for freedom, independence, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

Hamas and Islamic Jihad called on Palestinians to launch attacks in revenge for the law. Mustafa Barghouti, a senior Palestinian political figure, said the law reflects an increasingly hardline shift within Israel's political system and criticized the lack of meaningful international action.

The Palestinian Prisoners' Affairs Commission and the Palestinian Prisoners' Club have documented the conditions that Palestinians in Israeli prisons already face. They have documented the torture, the solitary confinement, the denial of medical care, the deaths in custody. Now, they say, Israel has formalized the next stage: state execution.

XI. The Historical Context: From 1948 to 2026

This law did not appear suddenly. It is the culmination of decades of legal, political, and military policies designed to create two separate systems of justice in the same land.

In 1948, when Israel was established, it inherited the British Mandate legal system, which included a death penalty. Over the following years, Israel restricted its use. It abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes in 1954. It has carried out only one execution since: Adolf Eichmann in 1962, hanged for his role in orchestrating the Holocaust.

For six decades, Israel maintained a de facto moratorium on executions, even as it retained the death penalty on the books for certain crimes. That moratorium is now effectively over.

But the moratorium was always limited. It applied to the death penalty under Israeli civilian law. In the occupied territories, the death penalty has always been available under military law. Palestinian prisoners have been sentenced to death in military courts for years. The difference is that previous sentences required the approval of the military commander, and none were carried out. Now, under the new law, the death penalty is mandatory.

This is not a change in degree. It is a change in kind. It is the transformation of a theoretical possibility into a statutory requirement.

XII. The Question of Deterrence: Does the Death Penalty Work?

The architects of the law claim it will deter terrorism. The evidence suggests otherwise.

A joint statement by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom addressed this point directly: "The death penalty is an inhumane and degrading form of punishment without any deterrent effect… The rejection of the death penalty is a fundamental value that unites us."

The Council of Europe echoed this view, stating that capital punishment "has no place in modern justice and is incompatible with respect for fundamental human rights."

Studies of the death penalty consistently show that it does not deter crime more effectively than life imprisonment. In the context of political violence, the deterrent effect is even more dubious. Those willing to carry out attacks in which they themselves may die are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of execution after capture. The law's claim to be a deterrent is not supported by evidence. It is a justification for punishment, not a strategy for prevention.

XIII. What Comes Next

The law will be challenged in Israel's Supreme Court. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has already filed the first petition. Legal experts say the law is likely to face a difficult battle before the Court, which has historically been more protective of civil rights than the current Knesset. But the composition of the Court has changed in recent years, and the outcome is uncertain.

If the law is upheld, the first executions could follow quickly. The Israel Prison Service has already begun preparing execution facilities. Ben-Gvir has specified hanging as one of the options, along with the electric chair and euthanasia. The machinery of death is ready.

Internationally, the consequences will be measured in diplomatic isolation. The European nations that expressed concern before the vote will likely impose some form of sanctions. The Council of Europe will review Israel's participation in its conventions and cooperation mechanisms. The United Nations will continue to condemn the law. But whether these responses will be sufficient to force a reversal is doubtful.

For Palestinians, the consequences are immediate and existential. The law creates a new weapon in the already vast arsenal of Israeli control: the power of execution. It formalizes what has long been true in practice—that Palestinian lives are valued differently than Jewish lives—and makes it the law of the land.

XIV. Conclusion: A Law for One People

On March 30, 2026, Israel passed a law that applies the death penalty to Palestinians and makes it impossible to apply to Israelis. It is a law that creates two systems of justice in the same territory. It is a law that denies Palestinians the equal protection of the law. It is a law that formalizes, in the most explicit terms possible, what human rights organizations have been saying for decades: that Israel is an apartheid state.

The world has responded with words. The European nations have expressed concern. The Council of Europe has issued statements. The United Nations has called for repeal. Human rights organizations have condemned the law and vowed to challenge it.

But words have not stopped the law from taking effect. Words have not prevented the Israel Prison Service from preparing execution chambers. Words have not given Sabreen Shahrouri the confidence that her brother will not be executed in his cell.

Words are not enough.

The law passed with 62 votes. Forty-eight members of the Knesset voted against it. Among them were Arab parties, Yesh Atid, National Unity, The Democrats, and some members of United Torah Judaism. These 48 people represent the minority in Israel that still believes in equal justice. They are the minority that understands that a law designed to execute Palestinians today will, inevitably, be used against other minorities tomorrow. They are the minority that remembers what it means to be a people marked for execution.

But they are the minority. The majority voted for death. The majority voted for discrimination. The majority voted to inscribe into law what the world has been reluctant to name: apartheid.

The question now is whether the world will finally call it what it is, and whether it will finally act.