“The Debate is Settled”: Israel’s Death Penalty Bill Solidifies an Apartheid System
STATEMENT FROM SALAM AL-MARAYATI
Washington, D.C. | www.mpac.org | April 7, 2026—The Israeli government’s recent legislative decision to accelerate the death penalty against Palestinians, engineered with a de facto exclusion of Israelis who kill Palestinians, is not just a policy shift, but the codification of state-sanctioned execution based on identity. The move has drawn major condemnation from a global coalition of 31 international groups—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam—describing the move as a grave violation of international human rights norms, particularly the prohibition against the discriminatory application of the law.
The debate over whether Israel is an apartheid state is no longer a debate, it is settled. For years, the international community has documented systematic discrimination in law, unequal access to land and resources, and severe restrictions on movement imposed on Palestinians. Now, legislation that singles out Palestinians for harsher punishment lays bare what has long been evident: this is not incidental inequality, but a system built on separation and domination. As B’Tselem’s Yuli Novak recently noted in an op-ed published by The Guardian, the policy further expands “a legal system designed to target [Palestinians], strip them of rights, subject them to systematic abuse, and, ultimately, shield Israeli perpetrators of crimes against Palestinians from accountability.” If there were any remaining doubts, this moment removes them.
At the same time, global public opinion is undergoing a significant shift, driven in part by the harrowing realities of the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank. Three pivotal trends are particularly noteworthy:
First, the framing of Israeli military actions as purely counterterrorism is being increasingly exposed as an excuse for displacing Palestinians from their homes, expanding Israeli control over Palestinian territories, and destroying what remains of Palestinian infrastructure. International bodies, including the United Nations, have repeatedly raised concerns about the scale of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Reports from humanitarian agencies point to widespread displacement, severe restrictions on access to food and water, and conditions that many experts warn are making large parts of Gaza increasingly uninhabitable. These realities have led to growing calls for accountability and adherence to international humanitarian law.
Second, there is a growing recognition—even among Jewish scholars and institutions—that Israeli government actions can have global consequences. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, David Myers and Joshua Goetz of UCLA’s Initiative to Study Hate noted that it is important to acknowledge “we can’t ignore the real prospect that Israel’s actions have led to violent antisemitic attacks and could lead to more." This observation underscores the need to distinguish between legitimate criticism of state policy and prejudice against a people or faith. As in the American civil rights movement, opposition to injustice should not be conflated with hostility toward a community; black Americans were not and are not anti-White, but rather anti-oppression, anti-injustice, and anti-racism.
Third, the long-term sustainability of current policies is increasingly in question. Across the Middle East and beyond, public sentiment toward both Israel and the United States has been shaped by decades of conflict, military interventions, and unresolved political grievances. Polling data from organizations such as the Pew Research Center has consistently shown declining favorability toward U.S. foreign policy in the region, often linked to perceptions of unconditional support for Israel. This dynamic has strategic implications: it risks fueling instability, undermining diplomatic relationships, and complicating broader efforts to promote peace and security.
These concerns also raise important questions about U.S. policy. American law places clear conditions on foreign assistance. Statutes such as the Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Laws prohibit the use of U.S. funds for units involved in gross human rights violations and require that military aid align with international humanitarian standards. When credible evidence emerges that these standards may not be met, it is not only appropriate but necessary for policymakers to review whether U.S. assistance is consistent with American law and values.
This is not simply a foreign policy debate. It is a test of the principles the United States claims to uphold: equality under the law, protection of civilian life, and accountability for the use of force. Upholding these principles strengthens both moral credibility and national security. Ignoring them weakens both and foments the current constitutional crisis.
The path forward requires clarity, consistency, and courage: clarity in distinguishing between a people and a government, consistency in applying human rights standards to all allies and adversaries alike, and courage to ensure that American policy reflects both our laws and our values.
Only then can the United States play a credible role in advancing a just and lasting peace.
