Australian Jewish leaders stand with Israel but question death penalty law

Leading Australian Jewish organisations have raised concerns over new Israeli legislation introducing the death penalty for terrorists while reaffirming their strong support for Israel and its people.

In a statement issued today, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry noted the Knesset had passed the Death Penalty for Terrorists, 5786–2026 bill by 62 votes to 48. The law allows for the imposition of capital punishment on those convicted of terrorist murder, primarily in military courts, and introduces procedures intended to expedite sentencing and execution.

“The Australian Jewish community stands in unwavering solidarity with the State of Israel and its people, who have endured grievous loss from terrorism and face ongoing security threats,” the ECAJ said.

“We recognise and share the desire for justice felt by victims and their families. It is from this place of solidarity, and not in opposition to it, that we express our concerns about this legislation.”

The organisation said the law represents a departure from Jewish legal tradition, noting capital punishment has not been practised under Jewish law for many centuries, reflecting deeply held values about the sanctity of life and the limits of human judgement.

It cited Maimonides, who wrote that it is far preferable to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent person to death, as well as Talmudic teachings that a court which imposed even a single death sentence in seven years was regarded as destructive. These teachings, it said, reflect a tradition that recognises the irreversibility of death demands the highest standard of restraint and certainty.

The ECAJ outlined three principal concerns with the legislation.

On discriminatory application, it said the Act applies differential standards based on nationality alone, falling well short of the principle of equal justice.

On deterrence, it said there is no empirical evidence that the death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent to terrorism, and no reason to believe it would deter followers of a death cult. “Legislative responses to the very real threats Israeli citizens face must be grounded in evidence,” the statement said.

On natural justice, it pointed to limited judicial discretion in military courts, the absence of a requirement for a unanimous verdict, no pardon provision, and a requirement that executions must be carried out within 90 days of sentence confirmation.

The ECAJ said the Otzma Yehudit party’s campaign for the legislation represents a troubling departure from the principles that have guided Israeli law and Jewish tradition, and expressed confidence that Israel’s Supreme Court would carefully scrutinise the law.

It also noted Australia’s longstanding and consistent opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances, and called on the government to apply that position consistently, including in relation to its use by Hamas in Gaza, its retention in the laws of the Palestinian Authority, and its prevalence throughout the region.

The Zionist Federation of Australia also expressed concern about the legislation while reaffirming support for Israel.

“The Zionist Federation of Australia stands in solidarity with the people of Israel as they face sustained military attack from Iran and its proxies,” president Jeremy Leibler said.

“It is from within that solidarity, not from outside it, that we express serious concern at the structure of the Death Penalty for Terrorists Bill passed by the Knesset.”

Leibler said the organisation did not question the case for harsh punishment, noting the pain of victims’ families and public anger over prisoner exchanges that have seen convicted terrorists return to violence.

“What concerns us is that this legislation creates parallel legal tracks that apply different standards depending on the nationality of the accused,” he said.

“That is not our characterisation alone. Israel’s own Attorney-General’s office, its security establishment and its Foreign Ministry raised objections to the bill. These were not the voices of Israel’s critics. They were the voices of Israel’s institutions.”

He said Jewish law and tradition emphasise the equal worth of every human life and warned of the broader moral cost of capital punishment.

“The Talmud teaches that a court which imposes a death sentence even once in seven years is called destructive, not because the rabbis were naive about evil, but because they understood that when the state takes life, the moral cost falls on the entire society,” he said.

“That cost is compounded when the law’s most severe penalty applies, in practice, to one population and not another.”

Leibler noted the legislation is now before Israel’s Supreme Court, expressing confidence in its independence to examine the law.

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council also expressed strong reservations about the legislation.

Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein said that while Israel has the right and duty to defend its citizens and hold perpetrators of terrorism accountable, the introduction of capital punishment represents a significant shift.

“While Israel, like every democracy, has the right and duty to defend its citizens and hold perpetrators of terrorism accountable, we believe that the legislation represents a grave and troubling departure from the values, norms and legal traditions that have long guided liberal democracies, including Israel,” he said.

Rubenstein said the legislation must be understood in the context of the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and hundreds taken hostage, and the ongoing dilemmas Israel faces in securing hostage releases.

“It is clear Israelis are looking for ways to reduce both the incentive for groups like Hamas to take hostages, and also the agonising dilemmas and social trauma that are created when they do so,” he said.

“These concerns and the quandaries Israel faces regarding hostages are very real and very urgent, and the quest for new policies to address them is not only understandable, but essential.”

“Nonetheless, AIJAC believes this bill is not the answer, and we have profound concerns about its troubling and problematic moral, legal and practical implications.”