ISRAEL’S use of the death penalty, particularly in cases involving Palestinian prisoners, is widely criticized as incompatible with international human rights norms.
While Israel maintains that capital punishment applies only in extreme circumstances—such as war crimes or terrorism—its application raises serious concerns about due process, proportionality, and the targeting of political detainees. International bodies like the UN and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly condemned such apartheid practices, viewing them as violations of the global trend toward abolition. The perception of a ‘curse’ reflects deep moral and legal opposition from the international community, which sees the death penalty as a relic of uncivilized justice, especially when applied in conflict zones—targeting the Palestinians.
Israel’s March, 2026 Death Penalty legislation passed by a narrow margin, imposes the death penalty exclusively for Palestinians accused of terrorism, drawing widespread condemnation from human rights groups. Critics argue the law enacts a discriminatory legal regime that disproportionately targets Palestinians, undermining principles of equality before the law. The legislation reflects broader concerns about systemic inequities in Israel’s judicial and military justice systems, particularly in occupied territories. Its implementation raises serious international legal and ethical questions regarding proportionality, due process and the potential for abuse.
The law mandates the death penalty for non-Israeli residents, primarily Palestinians– in the occupied West Bank– found guilty in military courts of intentional killing categorized as a “terrorist act”. This brutal and an apartheid law reduces judicial discretion, acting as a “default” punishment for such offenses. While Palestinians are tried in military courts with a very high conviction rate, Israeli settlers in the West Bank are governed by civil law, where the death penalty does not apply in the same manner, say critics.
Global concerns are raised regarding the speedy executions through this targeted law requires that death sentences be executed within 90 days of a final ruling. Experts have condemned the law as a “discriminatory regime of capital punishment” that violates international human rights laws, calling for its immediate repeal. Germany, France, Italy and Britain, along with Amnesty International, have expressed concern over its “de facto discriminatory character”.
Several observers, including Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, have described the measure as a step towards apartheid, noting the different punishments for the same crimes based on nationality as this law instructs military courts in the occupied West Bank and Gaza to impose capital punishment for nationalist or security-related killings. Moreover, the law applies to killings intended to “negate the existence of the State of Israel”. Likewise, legal experts note this phrasing effectively excludes Jewish Israelis committing similar nationalistic violence from the penalty, as they are tried in civilian courts where the death penalty remains largely abolished.
Further, the United Nations Human Rights Office and several European nations have called the law a “grave step backwards” and a potential “war crime” due to its discriminatory nature. Critics such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch argue it further entrenches a “two-tiered justice system” hallmark of apartheid. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Adalah have already filed petitions with Israel’s Supreme Court, challenging the law’s constitutionality and the Knesset’s authority to legislate for the occupied West Bank.
The OHCHR notes this violates principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law.The law applies to military courts, which human rights groups argue frequently fail to meet international fair trial standards, making the mandatory death sentences inherently arbitrary. Nevertheless, the United Nations opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and this new legislation is deemed a violation of international prohibitions against cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the execution of protected persons—including those living under military occupation—is strictly prohibited, making the law a breach of international humanitarian law.
The Right to Life: International human rights mechanisms, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Israel ratified in 1991, strictly limit the death penalty to the “most serious crimes.” Critics argue this law expands its usage far beyond this threshold. Violation of Apartheid Prohibitions: Human Rights Watch and other rights groups state that this “two-tiered system of justice” is a hallmark of apartheid, violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [0.5.7, 0.5.14]. Potential for War Crimes: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that the execution of protected persons under occupation could constitute a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention [0.5.15, 0.5.17].
Additionally, the law allows military courts to impose death sentences by a simple majority rather than a unanimous decision. Furthermore, it mandates an accelerated execution timeline of 90 days and removes the authority for a president to grant pardons or commutations, violating the right to seek clemency guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [0.5.6, 0.5.15].
To conclude, Israel’s recent legislation introducing the death penalty, specifically for Palestinians, contradicts international human rights norms, which prohibit capital punishment for crimes committed by individuals under certain conditions and emphasize non-discrimination. The law is “discriminatory by design” because it establishes a two-tiered justice system based on ethnicity. Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are tried in military courts where the death penalty is the default sentence, whereas Israeli settlers who commit similar crimes are tried in civilian courts with more lenient sentencing options.
The law’s targeted application against Palestinians raises concerns about racial and ethnic bias, violating principles of equality before the law enshrined in treaties like the ICCPR. International bodies, including UN human rights experts, have condemned such measures as discriminatory and a threat to justice. The lack of due process safeguards and potential for arbitrary application further undermine compliance with global standards on fair trial and humane treatment.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
