Israel's parliament on Monday approved a new law paving the way for the prosecution and possible execution of alleged Hamas elite force members and other Palestinian detainees accused of taking part in the 7 October 2023 attack.
The legislation passed its second and third readings in the Knesset by a vote of 93 to 0 and lays the legal foundation for what Israeli media say is the most significant trials in Israel since the prosecution of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann in 1961.
So what does the law actually say, who could be prosecuted under it, and how does it differ from the death penalty legislation promoted by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir? What does the new law classify as "crimes"? The legislation defines acts committed between 7 and 10 October 2023 as "crimes against the Jewish people", crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The accusations include alleged killings, rape, kidnapping and looting.
The law also applies to alleged crimes committed against Israeli captives held in Gaza after those dates, including captives who died while in detention. What are the punishments? One of the law's central provisions allows Israeli courts to impose the death penalty not only for killings committed during the attack, but also for other offences such as rape.
The provision relies on existing legislation, including Israel's genocide prevention and counterterrorism laws.
The law further states that any detainee sentenced to death, or charged with offences carrying the death penalty, would be barred from release in future prisoner exchange deals. How many people could face trial? According to Israeli reports, more than 400 detainees could eventually face indictment depending on the outcome of investigations carried out by the Shin Bet and the Israeli military in Gaza.
A special military court will be established in occupied Jerusalem to oversee the trials.
Cases are expected to be divided geographically, with separate proceedings linked to areas such as Be'eri, Nir Oz and the Nova music festival. How will the trials operate? Each judicial panel will include three judges, at least one of whom is a senior military or district court judge recalled from reserve service.
Defendants convicted under the law will automatically receive the right to appeal, with retired Supreme Court judges expected to preside over appeal hearings.
Israeli prosecutors are expected to begin filing indictments based on what officials described as a vast body of evidence gathered over more than two years.
According to Israeli reports, the evidence includes forensic findings from attack sites, interrogation records and hundreds of videos documenting alleged atrocities.
Most defendants are not expected to attend hearings in person; instead, they follow the proceedings remotely from detention facilities via technological systems.
The legislation also permits mass trials that deviate from standard evidentiary rules, according to rights groups.
Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, warned in previous comments to The New Arab that the law grants broad judicial discretion to admit evidence obtained under coercive conditions that could amount to torture or ill-treatment.
Unlike standard Israeli judicial practice, which generally prohibits courtroom cameras, the law also mandates the filming and public broadcasting of key hearings, verdicts and sentencing sessions on a dedicated website. Why is the law considered significant and controversial? Israeli media described the legislation as laying the groundwork for unprecedented trials in Israel.
The law was initiated by Constitution Committee chairman Simcha Rothman and Knesset member Yulia Malinovsky, while Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara were involved in drafting it.
Former military prosecutor Sharon Afek, now deputy attorney general for administrative affairs and special roles, helped shape the legal framework behind the legislation.
Israeli and Palestinian rights groups have warned that the legislation lowers legal safeguards while making the death penalty easier to impose.
Under the law, only a simple majority of judges would reportedly be needed to impose a death sentence, compared with the unanimity currently required under Israeli law. Death penalty panels could also consist of three judges instead of five.
Human rights groups have warned that the proceedings risk becoming "show trials" at the expense of defendants' rights.
Adalah said the legislation "subordinates every principle of fair criminal justice to a punitive and retributive spectacle"
"It is engineered to replace a genuine judicial inquiry with a retributive framework of state-sanctioned 'show trials' that explicitly strip Palestinians of the most fundamental fair trial guarantees," Adalah lawyer Muna Haddad told The New Arab. Haddad said the public broadcast provisions undermine the presumption of innocence and effectively treat an indictment as proof of guilt before any judicial examination has begun.
"The framework effectively treats indictment as a finding of guilt, before any judicial examination has begun," she said.
She also argued that the law violates international legal standards protecting the rights to life and a fair trial.
Several Israeli rights groups, including Hamoked, Adalah and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel , said accountability for the 7 October attack "must be pursued through a process which includes rather than abandons the principles of justice".
Amnesty International also criticised the legislation, warning it risks "normalising an irreversible punishment that violates international human rights standards". How does it differ from Ben-Gvir's death penalty legislation? Israeli legal commentators say there is a major difference between the newly approved law and the death penalty legislation promoted by Ben-Gvir .
Unlike the new law, which was specifically designed to prosecute those accused of participating in the events of 7 October, Ben-Gvir's legislation focuses on future attacks. It would not apply retroactively to Palestinians already detained by Israel before its approval.
Legal experts quoted by Israeli outlet Ynet also argued that Ben-Gvir's legislation contains vague wording around attacks allegedly carried out "to deny the existence of the State of Israel ".
According to the experts, the wording creates a populist and politically charged definition rather than a clear criminal standard.
They added that because death penalty cases require an extremely high burden of proof, judges would likely interpret the wording very narrowly, making it difficult to implement in practice.