There is little that unites the peerlessly fractured world of Israeli politics, but Itamar Ben-Gvir managed to draw together almost the entirety of left and right last week.
The moment came when the security minister celebrated with champagne in the Knesset after the Death Penalty Bill went through in the vote on its third and final reading.
Sixty-two MKs supported the proposal, 48 voted against and one abstained.
Characteristically eager to capture the media spotlight with heedless disregard for the consequences for the rest of the government and Israel, Ben-Gvir was indulging in the kind of flamboyant gesture his hardline followers lap up.
But most other Israelis were horrified, including even some supporters of the bill who believe there should be a death penalty for terrorists.
They saw celebrating executions even in the abstract as running counter to the most basic moral principles of Judaism, which most of all cherish the sanctity of life and counsel restraint, particularly when meting out justice.
According to sources, Ben-Gvir’s champagne bottle was abruptly confiscated from him, but not before the images were broadcast across the country and around the world, sparking widespread condemnation in Israel society and internationally.
Around 55 countries worldwide, including the United States, still carry out capital punishment.
The latest vote has reignited furious debate and intense scrutiny as to whether Israel should join their ranks.
To be clear, Israel already has the death penalty in law, but it is extremely limited and almost never used.
The bill currently being considered would result in an expansion of existing legislation.
Under existing Israeli law, capital punishment is reserved for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, treason during wartime, and crimes against the Jewish people.
Even in the very different past, the issues involved have always generated controversy and ethical debate.
Take the most famous execution in the history of modern Israel, that of Adolf Eichmann.
The top-secret operation in 1960 by Mossad to kidnap one of the arch-bureaucrats of the Holocaust in Buenos Aires and smuggle him to Israel to stand trial captured the world’s attention.
Eichmann was hanged just after midnight on May 31, 1962, at Ramla Prison. His body was cremated and his ashes scattered at sea outside Israel’s territorial waters so there would be no grave.
Yet at the time there were dissenters in the international community and some even within Israel claiming that the death sentence was a breach of international law and the moral standards of the Jewish community.
Under the new bill passed by the Knesset, those found guilty in military courts of acts of terrorism that “negate the existence of the state of Israel” could be executed.
Critics say that definition effectively precludes it from being imposed on Jews, and so it is only or largely Palestinians who would be executed.
The bill’s supporters vehemently deny they are bloodthirsty and seeking vengeance; far from it, they say the intention is to deter acts of murderous terrorism, claiming: “We are a nation that sanctifies life, and for this reason we cannot afford to forsake lives.”
Such is the argument put forward by the MK who presented the bill, Tzvika Foghel, chair of the National Security Committee and a member of Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party: “The State of Israel is coping with a reality of evil and hatred unparalleled worldwide. Our enemies do not seek a border, a compromise or a shared future, but rather to destroy, to attack, to sow fear here and to challenge our very existence.
“In the face of such a reality, our responsibility is clear – to protect the citizens of Israel. Not by words or hopes, but by actions. This bill is not a bill of revenge or rage; it is a bill of a state’s responsibility towards its citizens, of leadership towards human life.”
For years, polling in Israel has shown widespread support for capital punishment for terrorists. That sentiment has been hugely amplified since October 7, although Hamas terrorists in Gaza would fall outside the scope of this law.
One lawmaker who supported the bill argued that it would serve as a deterrent to hostage-taking, saying that if a convicted terrorist is executed, “there is nothing left to negotiate with”.
The argument draws on past exchanges in which large numbers of Palestinian prisoners were released in return for Israeli captives, most notably the 2011 deal that freed more than 1,000 prisoners in exchange for the soldier Gilad Shalit. Among those released was Yahya Sinwar, later a key architect of the October 7 attacks.
Fresh in the public’s mind are the 261 hostages taken into Gaza. Their captivity was an agonising ordeal shared by the whole of Israel and continues to shape national discourse.
Supporters argue that desperate times call for desperate measures, presenting the bill as a response to years of deadly terror attacks that have taken lives and sown fear. Limor Son Har-Melech, who sponsored the legislation and was badly injured in a 2003 terrorist attack that killed her husband Shuli, described it as a “deterrence”, asserting that “anyone who murders Jews simply because they are Jews forfeits their right to live”.
Even dissenters acknowledge that the legislation is born out of a nation deeply marked by trauma, where repeated exposure to violence has left some leaders and much of the public convinced that extraordinary measures are necessary.
Yet understanding the motivation is very different with agreeing to the bill. Opponents regard it as a grave mistake, both for the damage it may do to the image of Israel in the eyes of the international community, and as an ethical catastrophe that will do nothing to protect the people of Israel.
One source is categorical, describing the legislation as “an immoral, un-Jewish and undemocratic bill, which is also not effective from a security standpoint”.
As for the crucial question of where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands, the veteran political tactician has – as ever – a wider political picture and longer game to consider. Ben-Gvir and his party have a role to play in the coalition government as the epochal campaign against Iran enters its second month.
As Israelis take to their shelters almost every night as air strikes rain down, nothing can distract from the objective of victory over the regime. One well-placed source explains: “From Netanyahu’s perspective the move is really to appease that section of the coalition for the moment so he can focus on the war. He’s got enough going on.”
There is general agreement on one point, however – that the debate is not only fiery but also almost certainly moot. Many legal experts in Israel believe that the bill will be struck down. Jerusalem political insiders are clear in their belief that the legislation is merely the latest stunt by Ben-Gvir in his shameless bid for votes, with impending elections at most five months away.
The law is expected to face a legal challenge in Israel’s Supreme Court after rights groups file an appeal. Legal experts have noted that the legislation contains provisions that in all likelihood violate international conventions to which the state of Israel is a signatory. That being the case, it is highly unlikely that any executions will ultimately be carried out, no doubt to the growing outrage of the bill’s supporters in the future.
Expect the debate to play a significant role in the upcoming election. While no doubt the Supreme Court will have the last word, a huge shadow has been cast over the nation’s global image. Meanwhile, for many Israelis – even some opponents of the death penalty – the chorus of international condemnation only reinforces a sense of profound disconnection from an outside world that sometimes seems oblivious to what the country has gone through since October 7 and the stakes it faces now.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.