Those who oppose the death penalty have every right to do so. People generally object on moral grounds, attributing to life a transcendent meaning that I am inclined to share—it has value in itself.
Faced with the enormity of the evil that a person or a group of people can commit, it is not enough to show the world that such evil can be punished. Evil is a bottomless pit: the execution of Adolf Eichmann did not close the Jewish people’s account with the Nazis.
The execution of Nazi-Islamist terrorists would not eliminate the ideology that led Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar to plan the Oct. 7, 2023, operation in which his followers were sent not only to murder but to rape and butcher women and children, burn entire families alive and kidnap hundreds of innocent people to exchange them for convicted terrorists.
In the case of mass terrorism, however, the death penalty could serve as a powerful deterrent to the tactic of mass kidnappings, whereby those imprisoned today may become the next Sinwar. Some 88 percent of released terrorists return to murdering Jews or others.
Yet this factor is less decisive than the strength of the rule of law, which has by no means disappeared. On the contrary, it has been central to the debate and has moderated the harsher aspects of the legislation as originally proposed.
On March 30, the Knesset voted 62-48 in its second and third readings to pass legislation allowing the death penalty for terrorists convicted of murdering Israelis. The reaction in parts of the international community was swift and intense. Yet such an acute debate is rarely heard regarding other democratic countries that retain capital punishment.
During the Obama years, for example, no comparable international debate unfolded about the use of the death penalty in the United States, nor in Japan or India, to limit ourselves to democratic nations, not to mention the many authoritarian and Islamist regimes where executions are carried out as instruments of power.
When it comes to Israel—and only Israel—it is suddenly suggested that the country risks becoming an autocracy. Yet the legal framework under discussion has existed since the earliest years of the Jewish state and has been used only once, in 1962, against Eichmann for his central role in the Holocaust.
One of Israel’s first laws in 1948 abolished the death penalty for murder and replaced it with prison sentences. In 1950, following the precedent of Nuremberg, capital punishment was reintroduced only for Nazi crimes; since then, it has remained excluded for ordinary crimes and applies only—though never used—to genocide, war crimes and terrorism.
In practice, a small number of terrorists have received death sentences over the decades, but those punishments were always commuted to prison terms. Israel’s legal system is cautious and democratic, characterized by highly active defense attorneys and strict oversight by the High Court of Justice (Bagatz), which reviews legislation and will likely require adjustments to the law.
Compared with an earlier proposal advanced by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the current version is significantly more restrained. It includes safeguards such as the right of appeal, judicial discretion, suspension of sentences and oversight by Bagatz. The legislative evolution itself demonstrates the functioning of democratic checks and balances.
It is clear that the primary rationale for the legislation is deterrence. The notion that Europe might treat this as grounds for another rupture with Israel—while maintaining close relations with countries that employ capital punishment, and while often remaining silent about the use of the gallows for young people accused of being “enemies of God” in Iran—raises difficult questions about consistency.
If the law ultimately enters into force, it will not apply retroactively, nor will it target any group on an ethnic basis, as some critics have claimed. It is therefore difficult to sustain the argument that Israel intends to apply the law in a discriminatory manner.
.
The broader context remains the persistence of terrorism directed against Israel and the West. Claims that Israel is poised to carry out mass executions are unfounded. At the same time, far less attention is paid to the systematic violence carried out by extremist regimes and organizations.
Debating the death penalty is legitimate in any modern democracy. But the debate should proceed with historical awareness and legal precision. Israel’s legal tradition has demonstrated restraint and its democratic institutions remain robust.
The challenge is to confront terrorism while preserving the rule of law—a balance that has historically defined Israel’s legal and moral framework. The existence of evil does not disappear with capital punishment, but democratic societies must reserve the right to consider how best to defend their citizens while upholding the rule of law.
