Legislation of Death Penalty and Redefining the Palestinian: From Conflict Management to Engineering Annihilation

When law becomes a tool for redefining existence

The debate surrounding Israeli policies towards Palestinians is no longer limited to tools for conflict management or even traditional patterns of control; it has escalated to a level that reveals the nature of the structural transformation in how the Zionist state defines its function and limits. In this context, the push towards legislation that mandates the execution of Palestinian prisoners acquires implications that extend beyond the security dimension, becoming an expression of a qualitative shift from organizing violence to legislating it, from controlling the conflict to redefining it as a struggle for existence and the negation of the Palestinian.

This legislation cannot merely be read as a deterrent tool, as claimed by the occupying legislator, but as part of a legal-political structure taking shape, through which the Palestinian is redefined, not just as a political or security adversary, but as a being whose presence can be diminished, negated, or dealt with outside the complete system of rights. Here, the law no longer becomes a regulatory framework, but an instrument in reproducing reality, and perhaps in redefining who has the right to be part of that reality.

From controlling the occupation to legislating violence

This legislation comes in the context of profound internal transformations within Israel, where the influence of extreme right-wing and religious factions, which possess a fascist inclination, is growing, while traditional frameworks that have been presented as checks on power are declining. Law is no longer a means of regulating power; it becomes a tool for legitimizing its most extreme expressions.

The transition from repressive practices to legislations that legalize them reflects a qualitative shift from "managing occupation" to "legislation of cancellation," where violence becomes not only permissible but legally established. This shift opens the door to redefining the relationship with Palestinians, not as a group subjected to occupation, but as a being being redefined outside the boundaries of full recognition.

From denial of rights to denial of the people

Describing Israel as an apartheid state is based not only on the existence of a discriminatory system but also on an integrated structure that produces permanent disparities in rights based on identity. However, the deeper development lies in the transition of these disparities from the level of individual rights to the level of collective existence.

Denial of the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people, let alone the denial of their very existence, reverts the struggle to a struggle for existence, not just sovereignty. When a human group is redefined as "not a people," it opens the door to policies that are not limited to subjugation but extend to annihilation, either through legal exclusion or through creating conditions that make mere survival itself a threat.

In this framework, the legislation of executing prisoners becomes not merely a punitive measure, but an expression of a structure that sees the lives of a segment of humans as legally inferior, conditional, or subject to negation.

When legislation becomes an engineering of brutality

In normal contexts, criminal law is justified as a tool for achieving justice or deterrence. However, in contexts of colonial control, it transforms into a means of reproducing the unequal relationship. Thus, the push to establish the death penalty against Palestinian prisoners reflects not only a desire for deterrence but indicates a transition towards "engineering violence" within a legal framework.

This means that violence is no longer an exception to be justified but a norm to be established. When execution is legislated within a system lacking legal equality between those who are subjected to control and those who exercise it, the law itself becomes a tool for legitimizing violations that may fall, in other contexts, under serious crimes in international law.

When deterrence intertwines with the negation of existence

The crucial question here is not whether this legislation is a tool of intimidation, but whether it forms part of a broader pattern that approaches the logic of annihilation.

In international law, extermination is not understood as an isolated act, but within a stereotypical context that involves repeated policies targeting a specific group, including creating living conditions leading to the reduction of its existence or the threat to its continuity. When policies of blockade, starvation, and widespread destruction intersect with legislations that affect the right to life, we face a legal-political structure that can only be read as contributing to producing this pattern.

The inclusion of execution as a legal option in this context does not merely add a punitive tool but expands the scope of legitimization, such that harming life becomes part of an integrated system, not just a deviation from it.

From managing conflict to seeking resolution

With the rise of extreme right factions, a transformation in the conception of "solution" emerges within some Israeli political circles. The structural dilemma of the Zionist project, and its historical impasse, lies in how to maintain its ethnic-national character in a land inhabited by another people, and it is no longer dealt with merely through conflict management but through searching for ways to resolve it definitively. In this context, it seems that some of these factions rejecting options like "two states" or "one state" are offering a third option represented by cancellation through displacement, forced exclusion, or creating conditions that make survival impossible. Here, the question is not about keeping Palestinians within a political equation but about redefining their very existence.

This does not mean that there exists a "declared plan" in this sense, but it reflects a growing intellectual and political trend that sees extreme measures, including those affecting the right to life, as part of a strategy to deal with what is seen as an existential impasse.

Open zero-sum conflict without brakes

From a security perspective, this legislation may be presented as a deterrent tool. However, experience indicates that measures targeting dignity and existence often yield counterproductive results. When the horizon of survival is closed, and imprisonment turns into an eventuality that ends in execution, it may lead to redefining the act of struggle within a zero-sum horizon, where the difference between life and death fades as a restraining factor. Thus, legislation does not become a tool to contain conflict, but rather a factor in escalating it.

Testing the law between power and selectivity

This legislation places international institutions before a real test: will they treat it as an internal matter or as a violation of fundamental principles in international law, foremost among them the right to life and guarantees of a fair trial? Ignoring these questions deepens the crisis of credibility and entrenches logic of selectivity, where rules are applied according to power balances rather than standards of justice.

From reaction to building political capacity

In the face of this transformation, mere condemnation is insufficient; rather, there is a need for a multi-level Palestinian strategy that transitions from reaction to building capability. The first immediate step to take is to annul the decree that effectively nullified the law and regulations concerning the care of families of martyrs and prisoners and the injured, as this means nullifying measures that affected not only their financial rights according to that law but also their status as freedom fighters and prisoners of war. Without this, there can be no credibility for any national effort, and it requires systematic activation of all legal and diplomatic tools, including documenting violations and linking them to international accountability pathways, not leaving them within a temporary media framework. In addition to turning this legislation into part of a comprehensive file showcasing the structural dimension of discrimination, linking it to concepts such as apartheid and serious violations to enhance its usability in international arenas, it also calls for building international alliances, especially within human rights movements and global justice, transforming the issue from a political file into a universal human rights case before the International Criminal and Court of Justice, in addition to international solidarity movements and parliaments, and international and regional institutions.

Equally important is restoring Palestinian unity and political effectiveness, as no strategy can succeed without a political framework capable of unifying efforts, formulating a coherent discourse, and directing resources towards specific goals.

In the end, transforming knowledge into a pressure force remains a fundamental condition; reports and statements are insufficient unless linked to action plans that turn them into actual tools of influence in international arenas.

The challenge here is not only in confronting the legislation but in building the capacity to turn it into a pivot for reintroducing the Palestinian cause within its correct framework: the issue of a people whose existence is denied and who demands its right to be. The danger lies not merely in this legislation alone but in its implications; it reflects a moment of transition from practice to legislation, from concealment to visibility, and from denial of rights to denial of existence.

However, this racial exposure carries a fundamental paradox; the more the colonial structure becomes apparent, the greater its accountability potential. And in the end, the essence of the conflict is determined by one question: who has the right to define the Palestinian—and the right to define humanity itself?