Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is moving behind the scenes to soften a controversial proposal that would impose the death penalty on terrorists, amid concerns that the legislation could damage Israel’s international standing, according to an Israeli media report.
Citing unnamed sources in the Prime Minister’s Office, Ynet reported that Netanyahu recently contacted National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, whose far-right Otzma Yehudit party is leading the push for the bill, to express opposition to its current wording.
According to the report, Netanyahu told Ben Gvir he would not allow the governing coalition to pass a capital punishment law that is more severe than that of the United States. The prime minister is said to be concerned that a rigid death penalty framework could trigger international backlash and legal scrutiny.
As the bill advances through the Knesset National Security Committee, Netanyahu has reportedly enlisted Eli Dallal, a lawmaker from his Likud party, to submit formal reservations on his behalf.
The legislation is being fast-tracked ahead of its second and third readings in the Knesset plenary, a process that has drawn criticism from opposition lawmakers and legal experts.
Dallal has filed one of roughly 1,000 reservations submitted against the bill, focusing on provisions he argues undermine judicial independence and due process.
At the center of the controversy is a clause that would require courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinian terrorists convicted of murder.
Legal experts have warned that such a provision would strip judges of discretion and force automatic capital sentences in certain cases, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Critics argue that mandatory sentencing could weaken Israel’s legal system and expose it to challenges in international courts.
Dallal’s reservation specifically opposes the mandatory nature of the punishment, saying it “hamstrings judicial discretion” and limits the courts’ ability to tailor sentences to individual cases.
The Likud lawmaker is also demanding changes to the bill’s appeals process.
Under the current draft, defendants would be allowed to appeal their convictions but not the sentences themselves. Dallal is seeking to add a provision granting death row inmates the right to appeal for a reduced sentence.
Supporters of the change argue that allowing sentence appeals would bring the legislation closer to international legal norms and provide additional safeguards against wrongful or disproportionate punishment.
Ben Gvir and his allies say the bill is a necessary deterrent against terrorism, arguing that existing penalties are insufficient.
Netanyahu, while publicly supportive of strong security policies, appears to be seeking a narrower version of the legislation that preserves Israel’s legal flexibility and global standing.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
3 Responses
The obvious problem here and the elephant in the room is that no-one, and obviously not Ben Gvir, trusts the judiciary
With that starting point no matter what you do you will always get stuck
Article begins “Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is moving behind the scenes to soften a controversial proposal that would impose the death penalty on terrorists, amid concerns that the legislation could damage Israel’s international standing, according to an Israeli media report.”
Who wrote this? Controversial? What?
If it’s true, Bibi should resign today!!!!!
Israel has a history of creating an evil standard based on false assumptions and lo and behold the world holds them up to it! They say, look, the Israelis even feel it’s wrong to kill them….
This has got to stop 🛑
Time to remove 95% of the parliament and chose new leaders with common sense and a back bone
The problem is that if judges are given discretion under this law then no judge will ever pass a death sentence. The judges have all been selected for their fealty to the leftist worldview, they are all personally opposed to capital punishment in all cases, and think that Eichmann’s execution was wrong. Even if the law passes as it is currently worded, it’s likely that many judges will simply refuse to obey it. If it’s changed to allow them the usual discretion then every single judge, in every single case, will use that discretion to avoid the death sentence, so there will be no point in the law.
It’s like laws in the USA that allowed abortions for the sake of the mother’s “health”. These were no doubt intended to allow for cases where the mother will suffer serious and permanent injuries from carrying a pregnancy to term. Instead, the experience showed that there was no woman in the USA, no matter how healthy she was, who could not get a doctor’s letter certifying that she needed an abortion for the sake of her health.