Law to Execute Prisoners: The End of the Logic of Exchange and the Beginning of a More Severe Phase

Enacting a law that allows for the execution of prisoners is not merely a fleeting legislative step, but a dangerous shift that threatens the very core of the values on which international humanitarian law is built. These laws, established after harsh human experiences, were not intended to regulate killing but to mitigate the brutality of wars and protect individuals even in the harshest of circumstances.

According to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners are not parties to the battlefield after being captured; they are individuals deprived of their liberty who enjoy clear rights, foremost among them the right to life and protection from any form of arbitrary execution or retaliation. Thus, legislating their execution fundamentally undermines these principles and transforms the prisoner from a protected human being to a tool in the equation of revenge, deterrence, and punishment.

This law cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context, as reports of ongoing human rights violations against prisoners, both during arrest and throughout detention, are increasing. In light of this reality, bestowing a "legal" character to the death penalty raises serious concerns about the expansion of violations rather than limiting them.

Additionally, this law carries severe strategic implications that do not pertain to just one party, but extend to affect Israel as well. Historical experience in this conflict and others confirms that the issue of prisoners has always been one of the most important tools for calming tensions and opening negotiation channels through exchange deals. Therefore, enacting the execution of prisoners does not only target Palestinian prisoners but also practically serves as a death sentence for any potential Israeli prisoners in the future, as it undermines the very foundation of the exchange concept.

The historical dimension cannot be overlooked in this context, as experiences in multiple conflicts show that execution policies have not weakened the will of people or ended forms of resistance; rather, they have deepened and expanded them. History, including the British mandate period in Palestine, has witnessed instances where death sentences were executed against fighters, yet this did not end the national movement; instead, it contributed to transforming them into immortal national symbols.

The memory of the execution of the three martyrs, Mohamed Jamjoum, Ata al-Zeir, and Fouad Hijazi, during what is known as the "Red Tuesday" remains present in the collective consciousness, regarded as a pivotal moment that reinforced the presence of the national idea and consolidated values of sacrifice in popular memory instead of weakening them. This reflects that such policies may lead, contrary to their objectives, to deepening the roots of the conflict rather than containing it.

In the absence of a prospect for exchange, the prisoner becomes devoid of any negotiating value, which increases the risks of escalation and diminishes the chances of preserving their life. Instead of serving as a means of pressure towards solutions, captivity transforms into a factor that drives further cruelty and complexity in the conflict. In this sense, this law does not threaten any particular party; it abolishes international law, deepens the circle of danger, and makes everyone more susceptible to catastrophic outcomes, where the lives of prisoners become hostage to closed policies that leave no scope for any rational or humanitarian solutions.

At the international level, this development raises profound questions about the credibility of the global system: How can a legal framework claiming universality be defended while its application is held hostage to political considerations? Why are strict conditions imposed on certain parties under the banner of respecting international law, while obvious violations by Israel are overlooked?

The double standards not only undermine trust in international institutions but also drain the law itself of meaning. Justice that is not applied to everyone turns into a political tool, and the law that is used selectively loses its moral legitimacy.

In the end, this issue is not just about rejecting a specific law, but about defending a fundamental principle: that human dignity does not fall in times of war, and that protecting prisoners is not a political choice but a legal and moral obligation. Any attempt to undermine this principle does not threaten just one party; it strikes at the very foundations upon which the entire international system is built.