Israeli Parliament Kneset Accepted a law allowing the application of the death punishment to Palestinians. Although the rules formally mention to the category of “terrorism”, the criteria contained therein – specified as action against the existence of the State of Israel – make it possible in the context of the conflict to include 1 circumstantial cultural and national group. Thus, the bill raises serious doubts not only of a legal nature, but above all of a moral nature. These are fresh Nuremberg laws, dividing people into people and subhumans – critics say.
The Jews introduced the death punishment of nur für Palästinenser. The law importantly simplifies the procedure for ruling the highest penalty. The conviction may be delivered by a majority of the judges, without having to be unanimous, and the execution itself is to take place within a short time after its announcement. Cases are to be dealt with mainly by military courts and without the right to appeal, which further undermines the standards of a fair trial. In practice, this means creating a strategy in which a decision to be deprived of life can be made without any procedural guarantees.
The most controversial is the selective nature of the fresh law. In a country that declares its commitment to the principles of democracy and equality with the law, a solution is introduced which de facto differentiates criminal liability according to origin. Israeli citizens are not realistically covered by these regulations to the same degree as Palestinians, which means the formal creation of a double standard system. specified a construction of the law fits into the cultural logic of favouring 1 group at the expense of another and is hard to interpret differently than as a manifestation of systemic, Talmudic discrimination.
The argument about the deterrent effect of the death punishment is not conclusively confirmed in criminological studies, and in the context of asymmetric conflicts it can be counterproductive. alternatively of limiting violence, it can lead to further radicalisation and deepening of the spiral of retaliation. In this sense, the fresh law seems little a tool for real improvement of security, and a more political signal aimed at interior electorate and Talmudic-Zionist fanatics Ban-Gvir and Smotrician.
The bill was criticised by representatives of many Western countries. Criticism focuses not only on the death punishment itself, but primarily on its selective application. Human rights organisations indicate that these regulations violate the fundamental principles of global law, including the prohibition of discrimination and the right to a fair trial. The introduction of rules that in practice hit 1 cultural group strengthens the accusations of organization racism and undermines Israel's credibility as a regulation of law.
More broadly, the law represents another step in tightening the policy towards the Palestinians and moving distant from standards of equality to the law, which for decades have been the fig leaf of the Israeli legal system. alternatively of seeking solutions to reduce tensions, the authorities decide on repressive measures of the highest possible weight. This is not only a risky policy strategy, but besides a profoundly problematic ethical choice that can have long-term consequences for the stableness of the region and Israel's perception of the world.
Unfortunately, in criticism of judaic solutions, The West only refers to the alleged "human rights", without knowing the origin of the problem. For no 1 speaks of the Talmud, which - being a large book of pure racism and segregation - allows the strategy to divide people into people (Jews) and human-shaped animals (Goys). Let us remind that specified double standards were in line with the doctrine of the 3rd Reich, which, during planet War II, for example, prohibited abortion for Germans, while spreading its application among Poles.
