The Era of Backwardness: Echoes of Nazi Germany in the Gaza Conflict and Israel’s Rule of Law Crisis

By Natalia Betancurt

The resilience of democratic institutions is often tested most severely in times of war. States often use extreme legal measures in the name of national protection when confronted with profound security threats. Yet, history has repeatedly demonstrated that these actions rarely remain temporary. In fact, they can undermine constitutional orders, weaken institutional safeguards, and erode the legal protections that democracies claim to provide. 

The recent adoption of a controversial death penalty law by the Israeli parliament has reignited debates about the fragile balance between national security, democracy, and the rule of law. On 30 March 2026, the Knesset approved legislation mandating capital punishment for Palestinians convicted of violent acts defined as terrorism. The law, which prescribes execution by hanging within a short timeframe, represents an outstanding withdrawal from Israel’s long-standing practice of refraining from executions since 1962.

But the introduction of such a measure raises a deeper question: how is it possible that, after a century marked by some of the darkest episodes of state violence and legal abuse in our history, societies continue to adopt exceptional laws that risk undermining the very principles meant to protect human dignity and justice? If the twentieth century offers any lesson, it is a strong warning about the dangers of granting extraordinary legal powers in times of fear and conflict. It compels us to question whether we have genuinely learned from past atrocities and whether we are prepared to recognize and condemn similar patterns in the future.  

The Revival of Capital Punishment in Israel

Although Israeli law technically allowed capital punishment in rare circumstances, such as genocide or wartime espionage, the country had effectively abolished executions in practice. The only execution in Israel’s history occurred in 1962 following the conviction of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann for crimes committed during the Holocaust.  The new legislation represents a profound shift.   According to the law, the death penalty is established as the default punishment for Palestinians convicted of killing Israeli citizens in acts defined as terrorism. The penalty is anticipated to be applied by military courts in the occupied West Bank, and executions must take place within ninety days unless there are special circumstances. 

Concerns over the legislation's discriminatory structure have been raised by legal professionals. Critics describe it as a "dual legal system," since Israeli citizens convicted of similar crimes are usually tried in civilian courts while Palestinians in the West Bank are tried in military courts. Furthermore, the law removes several procedural safeguards that historically regulated the application of capital punishment, raising serious concerns about due process and judicial oversight.

War, Security, and the Expansion of Executive Power

The adoption of the death penalty law cannot be separated from the broader political context in which it emerged. The legislation began to be strongly supported by the government coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu and promoted by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Supporters claim that it will reduce hostage-taking tactics intended to secure prisoner exchanges and discourage attacks. However, critics claim that these regulations are part of a larger movement toward strict security measures that prioritise deterrence ahead of legal protections.

In the past, wartime conditions have frequently made it easier for executive authority to grow. Exceptional legal measures are often justified by governments as necessary responses to extraordinary threats. However, such measures face the risk of jeopardising constitutional protections designed to maintain democratic accountability and safeguard  individual rights.

With the Israeli case, the death penalty law intersects with earlier judicial reform proposals that sought to limit the powers of the Supreme Court. Taken together, these developments have fueled concerns among constitutional scholars about the gradual disintegration of institutional checks and balances.

International Law and Human Rights Concerns

The legislation has also provoked widespread criticism from international legal bodies and human rights organizations. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture (1985) warned that the implementation of the death penalty could violate international human rights obligations, particularly the prohibition of cruel or inhuman punishment. 

Similarly, human rights groups argue that the law could disproportionately target Palestinians and therefore violate principles of equality before the law. Some experts have warned that such discriminatory legal frameworks risk reinforcing accusations of systemic inequality in the administration of justice. 

International reaction has been swift. Several governments and international organizations have expressed concern that the law represents a regression from global trends toward the abolition of capital punishment. Today, the majority of countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice.

The Rule of Law Under Pressure

Beyond the specific issue of capital punishment, the new law raises deeper questions about the future of the rule of law in Israel.

Legal scholars emphasize that the rule of law requires not only the existence of formal legislation but also the presence of institutional safeguards ensuring fairness, proportionality, and equality before the law. Laws risk compromising the credibility of the legal system when they appear to focus on specific populations or to remove key procedural protections. Critics of the legislation argue that the law may fail constitutional proportionality tests and could be challenged before Israel’s Supreme Court. Some jurists have described the law as incompatible with the fundamental democratic values that Israel has historically claimed to create. The situation, therefore, represents a critical test for Israeli constitutional institutions and their capacity to preserve democratic principles during periods of conflict.

The adoption of the new death penalty law represents more than a controversial legislative development; it reflects a deeper tension between security and the preservation of democratic principles. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, extraordinary legal measures adopted during moments of crisis rarely remain confined to their original purpose. Instead, they tend to reshape legal systems, weaken institutional safeguards, and normalize exceptional practices that gradually erode the rule of law.

The death penalty's reconstruction in Israel within a context that calls into question due process, prejudice, and judicial scrutiny shows how exposed democratic institutions are in the face of protracted conflict and terror. Governments have a right to defend their citizens against terrorism and violence, but this duty must coexist with the equally important duty to maintain justice, equality before the law, and human dignity.

The central question raised at the beginning of this article therefore, remains unavoidable. The answer may depend not only on how states respond to immediate security threats, but also on whether they remain committed to the principles that distinguish democratic governance from rule by exception.  Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

Sources: Institute for Palestine Studies, The Israel Democracy Institute, Institute for Advanced Studies, Oxford University Press, Vatican News.

Written by Natalia Betancurt

Edited by Tomás Díaz García and Olivia O’Mahony