On November 10, 2025, Israeli lawmakers advanced legislation mandating the death penalty for individuals convicted of killing Israelis “deliberately or through indifference, from a motive of racism or hostility against a population, and with the aim of harming the State of Israel and the national revival of the Jewish people in its homeland.”1 Entitled Penal Law (Amendment No. 159—Death Penalty for Terrorists) 2025, the bill has passed its first reading and undergone several hearings in the Knesset’s National Security Committee.2

The legislation is part of a string of bills proposed by the Israeli government since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, designed to inflict retaliatory collective punishment on Palestinians. In its first reading, Israeli lawmakers called for the death penalty to be imposed on those who murder Jews for simply being Jewish and declared that “there are no Jewish terrorists.”3

“Whoever comes to murder Jews from hatred of the State of Israel—will bear the consequences,” Tzvika Foghel, from the far-right, anti-Arab Jewish Power Party, said.4 “There will be no more hotels for terrorists; there will be no more release deals. This is a first and significant step towards creating real deterrence and justice for the victims." The bill does not elaborate on what qualifies as an act intended to harm “the State of Israel” or the “revival of the Jewish people in its homeland.”5

Jerusalem Story sat down with Miriam Azem, international advocacy coordinator at Adalah —The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, on February 15, 2026, to learn more about the legislation and the devastating consequences it carries if implemented. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Jerusalem Story: Israel already has the death penalty, so how is this bill different from the law that already exists?

Miriam Azem: When we talk about the formal death penalty, Israel has effectively become a de facto abolitionist state, because the last time the death penalty was imposed was in 1962 during the Eichmann trial. Israel has consistently voted toward the abolition of the death penalty since then, or at least toward a halt on the progression of the death penalty, within countless United Nations (UN) resolutions. Through the years, Israel had committed itself to not advancing the death penalty and not expanding it effectively.

But Israel has never rescinded the death penalty as a formal punishment either, and extrajudicial executions have consistently been upheld by the judiciary. So, the legal system had effectively enabled a death penalty outside of the judicial realm. Now, it is being formalized into law.

JS: In its current version, what are the main elements of this bill?

MA: The bill talks of the intentional killing of an Israeli citizen, in the context of terrorism, with the aim of harming the existence of the State of Israel. There are two elements in that framework that we note are designed to target Palestinians. The first is that it effectively exempts Jewish Israelis from the death penalty for violent, ideologically motivated crimes against Palestinians. For example, an Israeli settler killing a Palestinian resident of the West Bank would not be held to account since the crime has nothing to do with harming the state.

The other element is that it disproportionately targets Palestinians within the framework of terrorism. Palestinians are often accused of terrorism charges, while Jewish Israelis, if held accountable for those acts or if an indictment is filed against them, aren’t necessarily indicted under terrorism charges. Instead, they are liable under different parts of the penal code that don't include the terrorism framework.

JS: How does this bill discriminate against Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and Israel?

MA: It’s complicated, and there are many exceptions. While Palestinians in the West Bank usually fall under the jurisdiction of Israeli military courts, those in East Jerusalem are typically governed by Israeli civil law and tried in civilian courts. Gaza is a third scenario. Since the 2005 disengagement, Palestinians from Gaza are generally not prosecuted under the military court system even when detained by Israeli forces. Rather, they are held as unlawful combatants or processed through the Israeli domestic legal system, in some cases.

So, the mandatory death penalty sentences for intentional killing would only be introduced in the military system, which applies exclusively to Palestinians in the West Bank [outside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem]. Jewish Israeli settlers in the West Bank are not subjected to Israeli military criminal law; they are subjected to the Israeli penal code and Israeli criminal law. In this way, the law clearly discriminates against Palestinians in the West Bank, even if the law also sets an option for the court to deviate from the mandatory death penalty and commute a sentence of life imprisonment. An implementation of the bill in the West Bank is effectively the implementation of Israeli law in occupied territory, which is an annexation measure and prohibited under international law.

JS: Can this law also be applied to Palestinians who are held in administrative detention?

MA: No, it's very much targeted to a conviction. Administrative detainees are individuals held without charge or trial. Here, the death penalty is imposed following a conviction. So, it's a very different track.

JS: How does this bill violate international law?

MA: There are fundamental aspects of this bill, regardless of whether it’s mandatory or not, that are contrary to international law. A death penalty imposed following a process that fails to meet basic fair trial guarantees is inherently unlawful and constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life.

We know that the Israeli military system, on many accounts, fails to meet fair trial guarantees, including the use of secret evidence, and the use of torture and ill treatment in the course of interrogation. So, any death penalty that is imposed following the use of torture and ill treatment would inherently also amount to torture and ill treatment, which is also prohibited. In other words, any death penalty that is carried out against Palestinians within this system would be unlawful. And regardless of the final formulation of the bill, it’s very clear that this law is targeting Palestinians, making it a racially designed piece of legislation, which is also absolutely prohibited under international law.

JS: And what about under Israeli law?

MA: We've also been engaging this issue legally under Israeli law. The Supreme Court previously held that the right to life is so fundamental that it can only be violated under very exceptional circumstances. The implementation of Israeli law in the West Bank also goes contrary to several previous Supreme Court decisions. So, we claim that the bill is illegal under international law and Israeli law.

JS: There have been thousands of objections to the law from within the Knesset, yet it still seems to be going forward. Does this bill enjoy broad support across the Israeli political spectrum?

MA: Almost all of the coalition is supportive of it in one formulation or another. There are objections to some elements of the bill, but there is a large consensus that it should pass. Some of the religious parties are not supportive of the bill from a religious point of view, and some parties in the opposition oppose it, especially the Palestinian members of the Knesset. But ultimately, we see wide support from the coalition and the opposition.

JS: Since October 7, 2023, we’ve seen an increase in extrajudicial killings of Palestinians. How does this bill fit into the pattern of Israeli state violence against Palestinians?

MA: It’s very much a natural evolution. In terms of both parliamentary and public support of it, it's all interconnected, because the process of dehumanization that allows this bill to have quite a bit of support is the same process that allows the consistent policies of state violence against Palestinians that look different in different geographical locations. It is all connected. Israeli lawmakers have very much internalized and promoted vengeance and dehumanization against Palestinians, and that is seen across the board.

JS: When is this bill likely to take effect, and what will be the immediate short-term impact for Palestinians who are in Israeli jails?

MA: The bill should not apply retroactively. That would go against every basic fundamental principle of criminal law. We would expect that, if it is intended to be applied retroactively, then there would have been a clear provision that says so. So, for Palestinians currently held in Israeli custody, it shouldn't have an effect. As for whether individuals currently standing trial could come under this law, we claim that it would absolutely be a retroactive application that does not conform with any basic foundational principles of criminal law.

As to the law's passage and how quickly it might evolve, it's really hard to tell at this point. We're in an election year, so it’s very plausible that lawmakers would have a lot of interest to pass it, at least before elections in October, and perhaps much sooner. They have had many committee discussions and have made sure all objections have been heard, indicating that the chairperson intends to pass it as quickly as possible. So, if they are able to reach an agreement on the formulation of the bill, we fear that it will take effect quite quickly.

JS: Is there anything else that you want to add about this bill and its significance?

MA: The execution procedures are extremely problematic in themselves. The bill talks about death penalty through hanging, but it is extremely secretive around the procedure; for instance, the individuals involved in carrying out the execution will be completely anonymous. This is because the Israel Prison Service will be enforcing those executions, which places them in a problematic situation under international law. So, by keeping them anonymous, it exempts individuals involved in the execution from any personal liability, and it exempts the state from any financial liability related to the executions.

Otherwise, individuals on death row waiting for an execution are placed in strict isolation. And the execution is to occur within 90 days of final sentencing, which is very rapid and problematic, since it restricts the amount of time that would be needed to challenge the sentencing if new evidence comes to light. So there are many ways in which this bill both violates international law and would amount to extensive violations of prisoners’ rights.