Israel has moved from decades of practical restraint on capital punishment toward a system designed to make executions usable in terrorism cases. In March, the Knesset passed a law that expands the death penalty for lethal attacks, and in May lawmakers created a separate military tribunal for people accused of taking part in the October 7, 2023 assault. Supporters present the measures as a response to mass killing and national trauma. Critics see something broader: a shift from exceptional punishment toward state sanctioned retribution.
The political appeal is easy to understand after the Hamas attack, which killed about 1,200 people and led to the abduction of roughly 250 others. Yet criminal justice is tested most severely when public anger is strongest. Israel’s new rules raise that test because they do not simply add another sentence to the penal code. They alter who can receive the death penalty, how courts can impose it, and how some of the most politically charged trials in the country’s history will be conducted.
A Legal Shift With Unequal Reach
The March law applies a mandatory death sentence to certain West Bank residents convicted in military court of intentionally causing death in a terrorist act, while excluding Israeli citizens and residents from that provision. The Knesset also removed barriers that had constrained capital punishment, including the need for a unanimous judicial panel in relevant military cases. The law calls for execution by hanging within 90 days after a sentence becomes final, with only limited scope for delay. European legal observers have warned that this structure could produce discriminatory effects against Palestinians.
The second change concerns the October 7 defendants. In May, the Knesset established a special military tribunal in Jerusalem with authority to hear charges under laws covering genocide, terrorism, murder, and other serious offenses. The measure passed by 93 votes without opposition, reflecting unusually broad political support. Proceedings can be documented and parts can be broadcast publicly, while the tribunal can impose the death penalty in qualifying cases. Rights groups have raised concerns that exceptional procedures and intense political pressure could weaken fair trial guarantees.
The issue therefore reaches beyond whether particular defendants deserve the harshest available sentence. A justice system also has to preserve equal treatment, evidentiary standards, judicial independence, and confidence that punishment follows law rather than political demand. Once execution becomes tied to identity, jurisdiction, or a specially designed court process, those safeguards come under heavier scrutiny.
Global Pressure Will Grow
Israel’s policy shift also cuts against a strong international trend. Amnesty International recorded executions in only 17 countries during 2025 and reported that 145 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice by the end of that year. At the United Nations, 130 states backed the 2024 resolution calling for a moratorium on executions, and Israel voted in favor. Israel had supported earlier moratorium resolutions as well, making its current direction a sharp departure from the position it maintained for years.
That contradiction will become harder to avoid as the new laws move from legislation to actual prosecutions. The central question is not only whether Israel can execute convicted attackers, but what kind of legal system it wants to build around that power. A state can pursue accountability for grave crimes without turning punishment into political theater. If executions become a tool for demonstrating vengeance, the cost may be measured not only in lives, but in the credibility of the courts asked to deliver justice.
Original analysis inspired by Noam Hofstadter from Haaretz. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
