On this past shabbat I sat in the synagogue and listened to the Rabbi on my left, the Rabbi on my right, and the Rabbi in front of me, relate their views of the Passover coming tomorrow. They asked me to flip the pages, to ask questions, and I paused here:

סַנְהֶדְרִין הַהוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בְּשָׁבוּעַ נִקְרֵאת חוֹבְלָנִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בְסַנְהֶדְרִין, לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
— Mishnah Makkot (Plagues) 1:10

How can this wisdom be? On this week of all weeks, do we forget?

On March 30, 2026, the Knesset passed a law imposing the death penalty on any person who “intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voted for it in person.

The law was written to kill a specific ethnic group, Palestinians.

Its architects know this. Human Rights Watch noted that within the civil court system, the ideological intent requirement of “negating the existence of the State of Israel” was designed to structurally exclude Jewish defendants. Amichai Cohen of the Israel Democracy Institute confirmed the law…

…will apply in Israeli courts, but only to terrorist activities that are motivated by the wish to undermine the existence of Israel. That means Jews will not be indicted under this law.

But the statute’s language has fatal flaw, because the ethnic targeting was not legally restricted to its targeted ethnicity. It tries to hide its true intent by defining a crime of intent.

Intent.

By this law’s own terms, no living person has done more by intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel than Benjamin Netanyahu himself. What follows is this plain evidentiary case, which everyone already can see, beyond what is known in classified briefs.

And it’s worth noting, before we begin, exactly when and why Israel ended its death penalty after they killed an innocent man.

His name is Meir Tobianski.

Arrested, convicted, and executed by firing squad all on the same day, June 30, 1948. Posthumously exonerated of all charges a year later, because his widow Lena demanded an investigation. Ben-Gurion issued a public exoneration and had his remains reburied with full military honors. The wrongful execution served as a painful reminder of the flaws of the death penalty, and was a direct catalyst for Israel abolishing the death penalty for murder in 1954.

His gravestone famously reads “killed by mistake.”

Israel learned in its first weeks of existence that the state kills innocent people. It abolished the death penalty for murder, as a foundational tenet, because of that lesson (Mishnah Makkot 1:10). Now Netanyahu is negating the state, with a 90-day execution window and no right of appeal, so he can kill a targeted ethnic group, Palestinians.

I’ll say it again, the death penalty for murder itself is the negation of the state of Israel. The new law puts civilian defendants back under the kind of summary state-killing authority that produced the Tobianski disaster.

Netanyahu is literally corrupting intelligence apparatus to undermine Israel all the way back to pre-1948.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has already petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the law. The 1954 abolition and the Tobianski precedent are the historical foundation of that challenge.

For 72 years, the rejection of state execution was part of Israel’s legal identity, a democratic commitment arising from the state’s own founding-era failure of justice. Netanyahu has reversed it. This is not incidental to the negation argument. It is the negation argument.

A state that defined itself in part by abolishing the death penalty after killing an innocent man, and whose prime minister reinstates it under conditions designed to deny due process, has been negated in its constitutional character by that act alone.

I. Statutory Framework

The operative provision of the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law (2026) amends Israel’s Penal Law to provide:

Any person who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

Two elements must be established:

1. Intentionally causing death
2. Doing so with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel

What “intentionally causes the death” means under Israeli law.

The statute must be read within the Israeli Penal Law (5737-1977). Section 18(b) provides that “act” includes an omission. Section 18(c) defines “omission” as refraining from doing what is a duty under any law or contract. The source of the prime minister’s duty is constitutional. Basic Law: The Government provides that “the Government is the executive authority of the State” and that “the Army is subject to the authority of the Government.” The prime minister, as head of the executive, bears a legal duty to protect the security of the state and its citizens. A deliberate failure to act on that duty, where death results, constitutes “causing death” under the statute.

Section 20(b) further provides: “foreseeing the consequences as almost certain to occur shall be deemed to be an intention to bring them about.” This is the near-certainty doctrine. It means that where a defendant foresees death as a near-certain consequence of his policy decisions, intent is established as a matter of law. He need not desire the deaths. He need only foresee them as almost certain and proceed anyway.

Section 300(a), as amended in 2019, defines murder as causing the death of a person “intentionally or indifferently.” The indifference standard is directly relevant to a leader who receives repeated warnings of catastrophic risk and dismisses them for political reasons.

What “the existence of the State of Israel” means under Israeli law.

The statute does not define “the State of Israel.” It does not limit “negation” to territorial dissolution. It does not specify that negation must be pursued through a single act of violence. It provides no limiting construction whatsoever.

But Israeli constitutional law does define what the state is. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), Section 1A provides: “The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” This is not aspirational language. It is constitutional law with super-legal status, giving the Supreme Court authority to disqualify any legislation contradicting it. The 1994 amendment to this Basic Law further directs that fundamental human rights “shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.”

The State of Israel, as constitutionally defined, is a Jewish and democratic state governed by the rule of law. We argue that “existence” must encompass this constitutional character, because Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty defines the state’s identity, and a reading limited to territorial boundaries would leave that identity unprotected by the statute’s own terms. Israeli legal discourse has historically construed “negation of the existence of the State” (שלילת קיום מדינת ישראל) as referring to physical destruction or denial of the right to exist. This brief argues that construction is incomplete: a state whose democratic institutions, independent judiciary, security architecture, and international standing have been systematically destroyed has been negated in its existence as constitutionally defined, even if its territorial boundaries remain intact.

Netanyahu easily meets both elements.

II. Element One: Intentionally Causing Death

A. The Iran War: Ongoing Casualties Under a War of Choice

This section carries particular legal weight. Because Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty §10 prohibits retroactive criminal punishment, the October 7 failures, the judicial overhaul, the hostage obstruction, and the Gaza campaign cannot independently ground a charge under a March 2026 statute. They are evidence of intent and pattern. The Iran war is the ongoing conduct that satisfies the temporal requirement: Israeli civilians are dying under this law’s operation, from a war Netanyahu initiated and continues.

The war began on February 28, 2026 with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. Haaretz characterized it as:

Donald Trump’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war. A joint venture, [following] Netanyahu’s incessant urging of American presidents to confront Iran militarily.

The retaliatory consequences were foreseeable and foreseen. Iran responded with waves of missile and drone strikes on Israeli territory. As of late March 2026, at least 20 Israeli civilians have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded. The largest single strike killed nine civilians in a residential neighborhood of Beit Shemesh on March 1. Iranian cluster munitions have struck Tel Aviv, Beersheba, and Dimona. On March 29, an Iranian missile struck a chemical plant in the Ne’ot Hovav industrial zone, causing a hazardous materials leak and civilian evacuation. Strikes continued on and after March 30, the date of the law’s enactment.

By the tenth day of the war, Iran had fired 300 missiles at Israel, nearly half carrying cluster submunitions banned under international treaty, targeted at residential areas. ACLED recorded more than 90 attempted strikes on Israel in the first five days alone, with around 20 directly hitting civilian areas.

RAND analyst Shira Efron, based in Tel Aviv, stated:

There is a sense in Israel that the desire to keep Israelis in this perpetual state of war also serves the prime minister’s political objectives. It is very difficult to go to elections when you are in the middle of a war.

The war was initiated by Netanyahu after decades of personal advocacy for a military confrontation with Iran. The retaliatory strikes killing Israeli civilians were foreseeable as near-certain. They are ongoing as of the date of the law’s enactment. Under §20(b), a leader who initiates a war knowing retaliatory strikes on his civilian population are almost certain, and who continues to prosecute that war for political reasons documented by Israeli analysts, has intentionally caused the resulting deaths as a matter of law. These are post-enactment deaths, caused by post-enactment decisions, under a law Netanyahu voted for on the same day Israelis were sheltering from incoming Iranian missiles.

B. Gaza: Over 51,200 Dead Under Direct Command Authority

The factual record for deaths in Gaza is established by multiple Israeli-admissible sources: IDF internal investigations, Shin Bet operational reports, testimony before the civilian commission of inquiry, and contemporaneous military orders issued under Netanyahu’s command authority. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 based on the same underlying evidence, but Israeli courts do not recognize ICC jurisdiction, and this brief relies on domestic sources alone.

The death toll as of March 2026 exceeds 51,200, the majority women and children. These deaths occurred under Netanyahu’s direct command authority as head of the war cabinet. The deliberate restriction of food, water, and medical supplies to a civilian population, as documented by the IDF’s own operational records, satisfies the near-certainty standard of §20(b): death was foreseeable as almost certain, and the policy was maintained. Intent.

C. October 7, 2023: 1,200 Dead Through Deliberate Policy Failure

An independent civilian commission of inquiry (November 2024), chaired by retired judge Varda Alsheikh, found after hearing 120 witnesses that Netanyahu was “responsible for undermining all decision-making centers, including the cabinet and the National Security Council, in a way that prevented any serious discussion that includes a plurality of opinions on significant security issues.”

The commission found the October 7 massacre was enabled by “arrogant” groupthink led by Netanyahu, which stifled critical voices and entrenched a false belief that Hamas could be managed with money. Intent.

Specific findings of fact:

• Netanyahu’s government facilitated the transfer of suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash into Gaza to maintain a fragile ceasefire with Hamas. This money strengthened Hamas’s military capabilities ahead of the attack.
• The Shin Bet’s own investigation (March 2025) found the agency possessed Hamas’s actual battle plans and did not consider them a realistic threat. The Shin Bet also blamed Israeli policies of propping up Hamas rule in Gaza to buy calm on the border, a policy directed by the Prime Minister’s Office.
• An academic analysis published in the RUSI Journal found that “intelligence agencies fell in line with political priorities dictated by the Prime Minister’s Office, who believed that Hamas was contained and refused to accept any evidence to the contrary. This is because that containment strategy served a wider political purpose of freezing and prolonging the status quo.”
• The border with Gaza was manned by just 767 soldiers when an estimated 5,600 attackers stormed the fence. 1,200 people died. 251 were kidnapped.

Netanyahu has never accepted personal responsibility for his personal failures.

The causal chain satisfies Israeli domestic law, though no Israeli court has previously applied criminal omission liability to a head of state’s policy decisions. This is a novel application. The unprecedented nature of the conduct justifies it.

The prime minister has a legal duty to protect the security of the state and its citizens. His deliberate suppression of intelligence processes and security infrastructure constitutes an omission within the meaning of Penal Law §18(b) and (c). The Shin Bet possessed the battle plans. The intelligence agencies warned. Netanyahu’s political directives overrode their assessments.

Under §20(b), foreseeing the consequences of a policy as almost certain to result in death, and proceeding anyway, is deemed intention as a matter of law. Under §300(a), causing death “indifferently” constitutes murder. A prime minister who receives warnings that his containment policy is based on a false assessment of Hamas, who dismisses those warnings to serve political objectives, and who leaves the border manned at a fraction of necessary strength, has caused death through omission with at minimum indifference to the outcome.

Hamas’s independent decision to attack is an intervening cause, and this admittedly is the weakest causation link presented here. It is included because the civilian commission’s finding of directed failure, not parallel failure, establishes causal primacy at the policy level and because the pattern of deliberate indifference to Israeli lives is central to the aim element.

Intent.

D. Hostage Deaths: Evidence of Aim, Not Independent Causation

The following evidence does not establish an independent count of murder. Hamas killed the hostages, and the intervening cause problem is acknowledged. This section establishes the pattern of prioritizing political survival over Israeli lives that satisfies the “aim” element of the statute.

Of the 251 people kidnapped on October 7, hostages died in captivity while Netanyahu obstructed deals for their release. CNN reported, based on Israeli documents, that Netanyahu derailed a potential hostage deal in July 2024 by introducing last-minute demands, and that at least three of six hostages found dead in Gaza were due for release under a May 2024 draft agreement.

The former spokesman of the Hostages and Missing Families Forum stated: “There is no doubt that Netanyahu is preventing a deal. Netanyahu knows that if he goes to elections at this time he won’t be able to form a new government, and he is motivated by cold political considerations.” He identified the mechanism: “The moment the hostages are released, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir will leave the government because they’ll think the price was too high.”

The Hostage Family Forum stated: “The Israeli government made a conscious and deliberate decision to sacrifice the hostages.”

These statements constitute available witness testimony on the intent element. The hostage families are not outside observers. They are direct victims of Netanyahu’s policy who received contemporaneous information about the reasons deals were blocked.

Their testimony establishes that Netanyahu chose coalition survival over the lives of Israeli citizens. Under the “aim” analysis, this is direct evidence that the negation of the state’s duty to protect its people was not incidental but instrumental to Netanyahu’s political objectives.

Intent.

III. Element Two: With the Aim of Negating the Existence of the State of Israel

A. Destruction of Democratic Governance

Haaretz documented that former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stated Israel was “already under one-man rule and no longer a liberal democracy.” Barak was not speaking metaphorically. He was describing the structural consequence of the judicial overhaul.

In July 2023, IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi publicly warned about judicial reforms:

a national security threat that imperiled Israel’s existence.

Netanyahu dismissed the warning.

The judicial overhaul aimed to: strip the Supreme Court of the power to review legislation, let the Knesset override court rulings by simple majority, and give the governing coalition control over judicial appointments. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty defines Israel as “a Jewish and democratic state” and grants the Supreme Court super-legal authority to enforce that definition. The judicial overhaul was a direct assault on the constitutional provision that defines what the state is. If the state’s legal identity is democratic, then destroying the institution that enforces that identity is negation of the state as constitutionally defined.

B. Corruption of Security and Intelligence Institutions

Shin Bet Director Ronen Bar stated in a court filing that Netanyahu demanded “personal loyalty from the head of the Shin Bet instead of loyalty to the state,” that he sought to use the intelligence service “against political opponents, against protests, against citizens who came out to defend democracy,” and that he pressured Bar to write professional opinions formed by Netanyahu to avoid appearing in court for corruption charges.

PBS reported that Netanyahu fired his defense minister for pushing back on Gaza policy, then pressured the military chief to resign, and the new chief then sacked the military spokesman. The Shin Bet dismissal came while the agency was investigating ties between Netanyahu advisers and Qatar, and while it was probing the leak of classified documents that provided Netanyahu political cover.

Former deputy chief of staff Yair Golan described this pattern as making Netanyahu “a direct threat to Israel’s security and rule of law.”

When the leader of a state demands personal loyalty over institutional loyalty from the intelligence services, replaces security chiefs with political loyalists during wartime, and fires investigators probing his own inner circle, the state’s security architecture ceases to function as a sovereign institution and becomes a personal instrument.

This is negation.

C. Empowerment of Actors Whose Stated Goals Negate the Democratic State

Netanyahu’s coalition partner Itamar Ben-Gvir was convicted by an Israeli court of racist incitement and supporting the Kahanist terror organization, and was exempted from military service due to extremist activities. He was famous for his threats against Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin before Rabin’s assassination. Netanyahu created an enhanced cabinet position for him overseeing all of Israel’s police.

Coalition agreements pledged immunity for settlers and security forces for anti-Palestinian violence. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich advocates annexation and ethnic transfer. The ICC prosecutor was reportedly preparing arrest warrants for both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.

Netanyahu did not merely tolerate these figures. He gave them the instruments of state power. Their program, if implemented, makes Israel ungovernable as a democracy and indefensible under international law. This is not a policy disagreement. It is the systematic installation of actors whose explicit program is to replace the democratic state with an ethno-nationalist one.

D. Destruction of International Standing and Sovereign Capacity

The ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu was the first ever issued against the leader of a Western-backed democratic country. All 125 ICC member states are legally obligated to arrest him. The sitting prime minister of Israel cannot travel to most of the democratic world.

The U.S. intelligence community assessed that Netanyahu’s “viability as a leader” was “in jeopardy”:

distrust of Netanyahu’s ability to rule has deepened and broadened across the public from its already high levels before the war.

The foreign ministers of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy jointly condemned the death penalty bill as undermining democratic principles. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe called it “a major civilizational setback.”

A state whose leader is an international fugitive, whose legislation draws condemnation from its principal allies, and whose conduct has generated genocide proceedings at the International Court of Justice has been negated in its capacity to function as a sovereign member of the international community. Netanyahu is the direct cause.

E. Obstruction of Accountability as Ongoing Negation

Netanyahu structured the October 7 inquiry so that he controls the composition of the investigating body. The opposition called it a “cover-up commission.” The Movement for Quality Government said:

This is not an investigative commission, this is a cover-up commission.

He has refused to allow a state commission of inquiry, the established Israeli legal mechanism for investigating catastrophic government failures, used after the Yom Kippur War, Sabra and Shatila, the Rabin assassination, and the Second Lebanon War.

A state that cannot investigate its own worst security failure because the responsible leader has captured the investigative process has been negated in its capacity for self-governance and institutional correction.

IV. The Intent Standard Under Israeli Law

The statute requires that the defendant act “with the aim of” negating the state’s existence. Critics will argue that Netanyahu does not subjectively intend to destroy Israel. Israeli law forecloses this defense on multiple grounds.

First, and dispositive: the law’s own application standard defeats the defense. Under Justice Aharon Barak’s purposive interpretation framework, which dominates Israeli jurisprudence, a statute is read through both its subjective purpose (legislative intent) and its objective purpose (the values it serves within the legal system). The subjective purpose of this law is discriminatory: it was designed to execute Palestinians. But the objective purpose of any criminal statute must conform to Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty §1A, which requires all laws to befit the values of Israel as “a Jewish and democratic state.”

Section 8 of the same Basic Law provides that rights may not be violated except by a law befitting those values. A criminal statute that applies by its own terms to “any person” cannot be purposively construed to exclude a class of persons without violating the equal application principle derived from §1A. The law either fails constitutional review under §8, or it applies to any person, including a prime minister. There is no construction that saves the statute and exempts Netanyahu.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel is making exactly this argument in its Supreme Court petition. If the court reads “aim” as inferable from conduct when the defendant is Palestinian, it must read “aim” as inferable from conduct when the defendant is a prime minister. The law cannot have one meaning for one class of defendant and a different meaning for another.

Second, Penal Law §20(b) provides that “foreseeing the consequences as almost certain to occur shall be deemed to be an intention to bring them about.” This is a statutory equivalence, not a discretionary inference. It must be acknowledged that §20(b) addresses כוונה (intention), not מטרה (aim), and that Israeli criminal law treats aim as a higher mens rea standard requiring subjective purpose. But the drafters of this statute collapsed that distinction by design. The law applies מטרה to Palestinian defendants through inference from conduct, not through proof of subjective purpose. No Palestinian defendant is asked to confess a philosophical commitment to Israel’s non-existence. The “aim” is read from the act of killing. Having collapsed the distinction between aim and intention in application, the drafters cannot resurrect it as a defense. Netanyahu was warned by the IDF Chief of Staff that his judicial reforms imperiled Israel’s existence. He was warned by intelligence agencies that Hamas was not contained. He was warned by allies that his military conduct would result in international isolation. He dismissed every warning and pursued the course that produced exactly the predicted results. Under §20(b), foreseeing the negation of the state as a near-certain consequence of his actions, and proceeding, is deemed to be intention to bring that negation about. And under the law’s own application standard, that intention is functionally indistinguishable from aim.

Third, the negation of the state is not a side effect of Netanyahu’s pursuit of personal power. It is the mechanism. The civilian commission of inquiry documented that Netanyahu consolidated authority by “undermining all decision-making centers.” He could not achieve personal dominance without destroying institutional independence. The destruction of democratic governance was not collateral damage. It was the method. Under the statute’s own “aim” standard, where the negation of the state is inseparable from the means by which the defendant pursued his objectives, the aim element is satisfied.

Fourth, Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial corroborates the motive structure. He is currently being prosecuted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The corruption charges establish a documented pattern of governance oriented toward personal benefit at the expense of public duty. The systematic dismantlement of institutions documented in this brief was not ideological. It was instrumental. He attacked the judiciary because it was trying him. He fired the Shin Bet director because the agency was investigating his advisers. He obstructed the October 7 inquiry because it would assign him personal responsibility. He prolonged wars because ceasefires would trigger elections he would lose. Each act of state negation served a personal objective. The corruption trial is evidence of the pattern. The pattern is evidence of the aim.

V. Procedural Path: Immunity and Prosecution

Under Article 17 of Basic Law: The Government, the attorney general must approve the initiation of a criminal investigation against a sitting prime minister. If the investigation produces grounds for an indictment, the attorney general may indict the prime minister. This is settled law. Netanyahu is currently being prosecuted under this framework for corruption charges. The mechanism for indicting a sitting prime minister exists and is operational.

A prime minister may request the Knesset to grant immunity under Article 4 of the Immunities, Rights and Obligations of Knesset Members Law (1951). The law provides four grounds for granting immunity, none of which are automatic. No member of Knesset has been granted immunity since 2005. Netanyahu previously requested and then withdrew an immunity request in his corruption case. A request for immunity from charges of causing death with the aim of negating the state’s existence would require a Knesset majority to approve, and would be subject to review by the Supreme Court, which retains the authority to strike down immunity decisions that lack evidentiary basis.

If immunity is denied, the prime minister faces trial in the Jerusalem District Court. Under Article 18 of the Basic Law, should the prime minister be convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, the Knesset may remove him by majority vote. If the Knesset declines to remove him, the government is considered to have resigned upon a final conviction, with the prime minister continuing to serve only until all appeals are exhausted.

The procedural framework exists. There is no constitutional barrier to prosecution. The only barrier is political will.

It should be noted that Netanyahu has systematically attacked the very office that would need to authorize his prosecution under Article 17. He has sought to strip the attorney general of independence, fired the Shin Bet director during active investigations of his advisers, and attempted to replace oversight officials with loyalists. The obstruction of the prosecutorial mechanism is not merely a procedural obstacle. It is itself evidence of the crime charged: an act of state negation that doubles as consciousness of guilt. A defendant who dismantles the institution responsible for holding him accountable has demonstrated, through conduct, the “aim” the statute requires.

VI. Conclusion

The Death Penalty for Terrorists Law (2026) defines a crime: intentionally causing death with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel.

The charged conduct is Netanyahu’s ongoing prosecution of the Iran war, in which Israeli civilians continue to die from retaliatory strikes that were foreseeable as near-certain, initiated and sustained for documented political reasons. On March 30, 2026, Netanyahu voted for this law while Israelis sheltered from incoming Iranian missiles. That is the post-enactment act that satisfies the temporal requirement.

The pattern of prior conduct establishes the aim. The evidence shows that Benjamin Netanyahu:

• Caused the deaths of 1,200 Israelis on October 7 through deliberate suppression of intelligence and security infrastructure, satisfying the omission and near-certainty standards of Penal Law §§18 and 20(b), establishing a pattern of causing death through policy failure motivated by political self-interest.
• Caused the deaths of more than 51,200 Palestinians in Gaza through policies documented by Israeli military and intelligence investigations, establishing a pattern of indifference to foreseeable mass civilian death under his command authority.
• Obstructed hostage release deals to preserve his coalition, directly contributing to hostage deaths in captivity and establishing, through the testimony of the hostage families themselves, that he prioritized political survival over the lives of Israeli citizens.
• Systematically dismantled the democratic institutions, independent judiciary, and security architecture that constitute the State of Israel as defined by Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, establishing the aim of negating the state as constitutionally defined.
• Continues to prosecute a war with Iran that is killing Israeli civilians, under foreseeable retaliatory conditions, driven substantially by personal political calculation, constituting the ongoing post-enactment conduct that satisfies both elements of the statute.

Each of these acts, individually, degrades the existence of the State of Israel.

Together, they constitute the most comprehensive program of state negation in Israel’s history, executed not by an external enemy but by the head of government, using the instruments of sovereign power.

This brief is not, ultimately, a call for prosecution. It is a demonstration that the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law destroys itself on contact with its own terms. A law whose most obvious defendant is the prime minister who voted for it is not a law that can stand. A statute that defines state negation as a capital crime, authored by a government whose conduct meets that definition, is an act of self-indictment by the state itself.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has petitioned the Supreme Court to strike this law down. This brief provides the evidentiary record for that petition. The law was designed to kill Palestinians under conditions that deny due process, enacted by a government that has systematically negated every democratic principle Israel has defined itself by since Meir Tobianski’s gravestone was inscribed “killed by mistake.”

The law should be struck down before it kills anyone else by design.

Sources

Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes” (March 31, 2026)

International Criminal Court, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Arrest Warrants (November 21, 2024)

Times of Israel, Civilian Commission of Inquiry Findings (November 26, 2024)

NPR, Shin Bet Investigation Findings (March 5, 2025)

RUSI Journal, “Israel and the Politics of Intelligence Failure on 7 October”

Foreign Policy, “Israel’s Netanyahu Fears Probe” (March 12, 2025)

Anadolu Agency, Shin Bet Chief’s Court Filing (April 22, 2025)

PBS NewsHour, “Netanyahu sparks uproar in push to fire Israel’s domestic security chief” (March 17, 2025)

J Street, “Netanyahu’s Ultra Right-Wing Coalition Government: A Dossier”

CNN, U.S. Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment (March 2024)

PBS NewsHour, October 7 Government Inquiry (November 17, 2025)

Christian Science Monitor, “Netanyahu tries rewriting Israel’s Oct. 7 narrative” (February 20, 2026)

Haaretz, “Netanyahu’s 11 Moves Taking Israel From Democracy Toward Authoritarian Rule” (January 24, 2026)

Bloomberg, Interview with Shira Efron, RAND (March 27, 2026)

Haaretz, “The Netanyahu Doctrine Is Now Facing Its Ultimate Test” (March 25, 2026)

Amnesty International, “Newly adopted death penalty law must be repealed” (March 31, 2026)

Israeli Penal Law 5737-1977, §§18, 19, 20, 300 (Refworld unofficial English translation)

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 5752-1992 (Refworld)

Lawfare, “Indicting a Sitting Prime Minister: The Israeli Constitutional Framework”

Israel Democracy Institute, “Immunity for the Prime Minister: Explainer”

Basic Law: The Government (Constitute Project)

CNN, “Netanyahu derailed a potential Gaza hostage deal in July” (September 4, 2024)

Times of Israel, Hostages Forum ex-spokesman: “No doubt Netanyahu preventing deal” (April 26, 2024)

NBC News, “Netanyahu won’t agree to hostage deal unless it polls well” (May 31, 2024)

University of Washington Stroum Center, “The shadow of the death penalty in Israel” (March 31, 2022)

CNN, “Day 28 of Middle East conflict” (March 28, 2026)

Times of Israel, Liveblog March 29, 2026

ACLED, “Middle East Special Issue: March 2026”

CNN, “Israel’s parliament votes to expand death penalty for Palestinians” (March 30, 2026)

Israel.

The state whose founding narrative is the exodus from slavery remembered and taught as avadim hayinu has voted against a resolution that says slavery was a crime against humanity.

They voted during the season when every Jewish family is commanded to remember:

1. You were slaves.
2. You must never forget slaves.
3. You must never allow slavery again.

The Haggadah says: in every generation, a person is obligated to see themselves as if they personally went out of Egypt.

Then the UN asked 193 countries to do something much smaller, just acknowledge slavery happened and it was wrong.

123 remembered, they voted yes.

Israel said no.

Israel voted to cancel avadim hayinu.

וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ ה’ אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ מִשָּׁם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה
וְאִלּוּ לֹא הוֹצִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם
הֲרֵי [עֲדַיִין] אָנוּ וּבָנֵינוּ וּבְנֵי בָנֵינוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם

Dear God, if your divine wisdom did not see slavery as a crime, we and our children and our children’s children would still be enslaved. But are you even real? The F-35 is real.

Die New York Times möchte uns glauben machen, dass Berliner in Kriegszeiten „einfach weitergemacht” hätten, statt die Stadt zu verlassen. Ian Buruma hat etwas geschrieben, das er einen „Liebesbrief” an die Stadt nennt – für all jene, die am Völkermord mitschuldig waren. Das Buch heißt zynischerweise Stay Alive. Der Untertitel lautet „Berlin, 1939–1945″, obwohl er wohl eher hätte heißen sollen: „Von Juden ist hier offensichtlich nicht die Rede”.

Stay… und alive. Nicht für die Zwangsdeportierten. Nicht für die, denen man in den Kopf schoss und die man in Massengräbern verscharrte.

Stay alive, liebe Berliner.

Als ob die Berliner, die die Juden hinausdrängten, in die Züge nach Auschwitz, diejenigen gewesen wären, die überleben mussten. Die Menschen, die tatsächlich am Leben bleiben mussten, waren in all den Lagern – dorthin geschickt aus Berlin, von Gleis 17 am Bahnhof Grunewald –, während die Nachbarn bereits planten, sich ihre Wohnungen anzueignen. Die Bedrohung für Berlins Juden war die Vernichtung durch ihre Nachbarn. Die letztlich von außen erzwungene Bedrohung für diese Nachbarn waren Konsequenzen: alliierte Bomben als Antwort auf die vielen Kriege, die ihre Regierung angezettelt hatte, sowjetische Truppen als Antwort auf 27 Millionen eigene Tote.

Buruma kann mit diesem Titel der Nazi-fördernden Auslöschung davonkommen, weil Berlin die Struktur dafür bereits geschaffen hat. Es ist die Stadt, die dafür bekannt ist, jede Spur der Menschen zu tilgen, die nicht am Leben geblieben sind.

Es gibt dort keine Fotografien der Deportationen, und das ist einfach nur seltsam.

Nicht ein einziges Foto.

Das #LastSeen-Projekt hat Deportationsbilder aus 60 deutschen Städten und Gemeinden gefunden. Wir sehen über 420 Fotografien aus Orten wie Fulda, Breslau, München.

Nicht aus Berlin.

Keine Fotos der Deportation haben überlebt. Verstanden? Mehr als 50.000 Juden wurden in Synagogen zusammengetrieben und zu Güterbahnhöfen marschiert, zwischen 1941 und 1943, und dennoch hat nicht ein einziges Bild überlebt.

Keine Fotos der Verbrechen, damit die Täter überleben konnten. Das ist es, was es Buruma ermöglicht, ein Foto von Tätern auf das Cover seines Buches zu setzen und grausam „stay alive” darauf zu schreiben.

Die überlebenden Bilder zeigen Menschen, die ihre Habseligkeiten durch Berliner Straßen tragen – als Täterbevölkerung. Die Opfer wurden so gründlich ausgelöscht, dass selbst die visuelle Sprache der Vertreibung von den Menschen vereinnahmt wurde, die sie verursacht haben.

Sechzig Städte dokumentierten, was sie taten. Berlin vernichtete die Beweise, nahm die Wohnungen, sammelte das gestohlene Eigentum ein und wurde wütend auf jeden, der versuchte, Beweise zu sichern. Nach vorne schauen! Die Vergangenheit vergessen! Wir dürfen nur über die Zukunft sprechen! Wenn es keine Gesichter für die Toten gibt, kann man die Lebenden aufs Cover setzen und es als Feier allein ihres Überlebens bezeichnen.

Ein Liebesbrief. An die Stadt, in der das Reichssicherheitshauptamt, die Wannsee-Villa, die T4-Euthanasienzentrale und die Gestapo in der Prinz-Albrecht-Straße untergebracht waren. Während der Jahre, in denen der Holocaust aus ihren Konferenzräumen heraus verwaltet wurde. Das sollen wir jetzt lieben.

Bedenken Sie, dass Burumas Vater Leo den Krieg in Berlin verbrachte und dort leichte Maschinengewehre für die Wehrmacht herstellte. Das Buch des Sohnes verwandelt diese Tatsache in eine Geschichte über den „Versuch, sein eigenes Gleichgewicht zwischen Widerstand und Überleben zu finden”. Die Rezension strukturiert den Satz sogar so, dass es verschleiert wird: Leo arbeitete in „einer Fabrik, die Bremsen für Lokomotiven, aber auch leichte Maschinengewehre herstellte.”

Erst die Bremsen. Maschinengewehre… ach ja, das auch noch.

Als ob Züge in Todeslager, geschweige denn die Bewaffnung eines Völkermords, eine Fußnote zum Geschäft gewesen wären. Das ist ein Familienprojekt, ihre Investitionen für eine Rendite. Der Vater stellte Waffen für Nazis her. Der Sohn schrieb den Liebesbrief zu Ehren der Kunden – derjenigen, die hinter den Gewehren standen und sie kauften.

Die Besetzung

Jede Person in diesem Buch wird auf bizarre Weise entweder als Opfer oder als Zuschauer inszeniert. Das ist der einzig erlaubte Rahmen. Ein Dirigent, der sich einredete, er sei unpolitisch. Literaten, die debattierten, ob sie ins Exil gehen sollten. Familien, die sich in Bordellen versteckten. Und der Vater des Autors wird als Mann beschrieben, der „den alliierten Luftangriffen auswich” – nicht als Mann, der die Waffen baute, die diese Luftangriffe notwendig machten.

Das ist unter Nazis üblich: sich selbst zum wahren Opfer zu erklären und Unterstützung zu suchen, um der Verantwortung zu entgehen.

Niemand in diesem Buch organisiert die Deportationslogistik in Berlin. Niemand arbeitet in den Lagern. Niemand kassiert die arisierten Besitztümer und fälscht die Stadtakten. Niemand bearbeitet den Papierkram, der 50.000 Juden von Gleis 17 in Grunewald – vor aller Augen der Nachbarschaft – in den Tod schickte. Die Täter sind keine Figuren. Sie sind bloß das Wetter, von dem die Berliner profitieren.

Die Zauberworte

Burumas These, zitiert in der Times-Rezension: Die meisten Berliner waren „weder Zyniker, noch Schläger, noch ideologische Fanatiker; sie haben sich einfach angepasst.” Schwachsinn. „Einfach angepasst” ist die Formulierung, die eine ganze Stadt von der Verantwortung befreit. Anpassung ist passiv.

Was die Berliner taten, war aktive Teilnahme.

Sie besetzten die Stellen, die durch deportierte Juden frei geworden waren. Sie nahmen die Wohnungen und dekorierten mit gestohlener Kunst und gestohlenen Möbeln. Sie besuchten die Konzerte, die mit gestohlenem Reichtum finanziert wurden. Sie übernahmen alle Kunden, alle Märkte und tranken den aus Frankreich geraubten Wein. Das ist keine Anpassung. Das ist die beabsichtigte Dividende des Völkermords, und Berlin war ein Epizentrum des Dividendensammelns.

Die Entlastungsmaschine

Das gesamte Projekt scheint sich um einen Mann namens Erich Alenfeld zu drehen. Ein Jude, der zum Christentum „konvertierte” – Alenfeld schrieb 1939 einen Liebesbrief an Hermann Göring, in dem er sein Erbe verleugnet und sich freiwillig zur deutschen Armee meldete. Sein Sohn trat mit zehn Jahren der Hitlerjugend bei. Jahrzehnte später schrieb seine Tochter ein Buch mit dem Titel Why Didn’t You Leave?

Die Familie selbst konnte klar sehen, was es war.

Burumas Erklärung richtet sich gegen sie und will uns glauben machen, dass dies „nicht immer zynische Zugeständnisse” gewesen seien. Die Verbrechen sollen mit dem „nationalistischen Geist der Zeit” entschuldigt werden. Die Alenfelds, schreibt er, „waren ebenso von der deutschen Romantik beeinflusst wie jeder andere ihrer Generation.”

Romantik. Ein jüdischer Mann schreibt an den Architekten der Arisierung, meldet sich freiwillig zum Dienst in der Armee, die sein Volk vernichten wird, und dieser Mann nennt es Romantik.

Es ist widerlich.

Diese Geschichte leistet konkrete Arbeit. Wenn sogar ein Jude aufrichtig daran glauben konnte, anstatt eine Kugel in den Kopf zu bekommen – nicht aus Verzweiflung, nicht als Überlebungstarnung, sondern aus echtem Nationalgefühl –, dann kann niemand anderem die Schuld gegeben werden. Die Ideologie war normal, verführerisch. Sie riss alle in die Verbrechen hinein, sogar ihre Opfer. Und wenn die Opfergruppe die Lügen glaubte, welche Ausrede braucht dann die Profiteursgruppe noch?

Deshalb braucht Buruma „Romantik” statt Verblendung oder „Verzweiflung”. Tausende Juden und Mischlinge dienten in der Wehrmacht. Bryan Mark Rigg hat sie dokumentiert. Sie hofften zu überleben. Sie taten es, weil die Alternative der Tod war. Sie taten es, weil eine Uniform Tarnung in einem Kugelhagel war. Buruma streicht all diesen tatsächlichen Überlebenskontext und ersetzt ihn durch sein persönliches Empfinden. Romantik macht die Kollaboration des Opfers an seinem eigenen Tod universell und schön. Verzweiflung würde zugeben, dass es Menschen unter tatsächlicher existenzieller Bedrohung gab, und würde die offensichtliche Frage aufwerfen, welche Ausrede die acht Millionen mitschuldigen Berliner hatten.

Der Titel der Tochter ist die Frage, die dieses neue Buch auslöschen will. Why didn’t you leave. Warum habt ihr euch nicht geweigert. Warum habt ihr mitgemacht. Buruma will nicht, dass die Frage gestellt wird. Er will nicht, dass die Antwort durchsickert. Also löst er das Thema in Stimmung auf. Er nennt Völkermord buchstäblich romantisch. Er nennt Nazi-Komplizenschaft eine Liebesgeschichte. Er nennt das Ganze einen Liebesbrief.

Und die Times druckt und bewirbt es dummerweise, weil dort offenbar niemand mehr Geschichte studiert.

Wer bekommt ein Gesicht

Das Buch endet mit der üblichen Horrorgeschichte, die Nazis anführen. Sowjetische Truppen kamen an, und mehr als 100.000 Berliner Frauen und Mädchen wurden vergewaltigt. Buruma interviewt eine Überlebende, die 14 war. Das ist reale Geschichte, und sie ist wichtig.

Sie ist wichtig, weil er die mehr als 50.000 aus Berlin deportierten Juden auslöscht. Sie erhalten keine gleichwertige Behandlung. Das können sie nicht. Berlin hat dafür gesorgt. Keine Fotografien, keine Gesichter, keine Namen auf dem Denkmal. Keine Überlebenden zum Interviewen. Vergewaltigt und ermordet.

Die Struktur des Buches beginnt mit Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber der Tragödie und endet mit einem Appell um Mitgefühl für sowjetische Gewalt, damit die Berliner die Geschichte als Opfer beenden statt als Beteiligte. Alle jüdischen Frauen und Mädchen werden vergessen, damit die Vergewaltigungen Jahre später die ganze Aufmerksamkeit bekommen. Die Toten bleiben gesichtslos. Die Lebenden werden zur Anerkennung präsentiert.

Thomas Mann hat es gesehen

Die Rezension zitiert Thomas Mann: Alles, was in Deutschland zwischen 1933 und 1945 veröffentlicht wurde, trage den Geruch „von Blut und Schande”. Die Rezension behandelt dies als zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext, aber es ist so viel mehr. Das ist eine direkte Anklage des Projekts.

Manns Maßstab besagt, dass die Stimmen, die Buruma so unbedingt bewahren will – jene, die blieben, um zu profitieren, die sich anpassten, um Gewinn zu machen, die weitermachten, wie Hitler es befahl – keine neutralen Zeugen sind. Sie sind kompromittierte Quellen. Nicht weil sie logen, sondern weil das Überleben im nationalsozialistischen Berlin die Teilnahme an dem System erforderte, das ihr „Überleben” erst notwendig machte.

Mann ging. Brecht ging. Die Menschen, die blieben, trafen eine Entscheidung zur Teilnahme, und diese Entscheidung hatte einen Preis, den jemand anderes zahlte. Diejenigen, die Widerstand leisteten, waren die, die getötet, deren Leben zerstört wurden. Buruma kennt diese eigentliche Geschichte, denn die Waffenfabrik seines Vaters kommt im Buch vor. Aber die Rahmung verwandelt Komplizenschaft in Tragödie, Produktion in Überleben und Verzweiflung in Romantik. Diese unmoralische Desinformationskonversion scheint der Zweck zu sein.

Nicht sein erstes Mal

2018 wurde Buruma als Chefredakteur der New York Review of Books zum Rücktritt gezwungen. Erinnern Sie sich an seine Bitte, an die Nazis zu denken, die unter der sowjetischen Befreiung Berlins litten? Buruma veröffentlichte einen Essay von Jian Ghomeshi, der von über 20 Frauen der sexuellen Nötigung beschuldigt wurde, in dem Ghomeshi seine Geschichte als Opfer öffentlicher Beschämung umdeuten durfte. Burumas Verteidigung ist sehr relevant für die von sowjetischen Soldaten vergewaltigten Frauen:

Die genaue Art seines Verhaltens – wie viel Einvernehmen dabei im Spiel war – davon habe ich keine Ahnung, und es ist auch nicht wirklich mein Anliegen.

Und warum kümmert es ihn nicht? 2018 gab er einem der sexuellen Nötigung beschuldigten Täter eine Plattform, um sein eigenes Leiden zu erzählen. Jetzt, 2026, will er einer ganzen Stadt von Beteiligten endlich die Plattform geben, um ihr Leiden zu erzählen. Sollte er nicht die sowjetischen Soldaten verteidigen, so wie er Ghomeshi verteidigt? Die Heuchelei sei angemerkt.

Beide Projekte stellen die Erfahrung der Konsequenzen durch den Täter ins Zentrum, nicht die Erfahrung des Schadens durch das Opfer. Beide behandeln Rechenschaftspflicht als die eigentliche Gewalt. 2018 wurde er dafür gefeuert. 2026 druckt die Times Nazi-Liebesbriefe.

Der Rezensent sieht es und geht weiter

Kevin Peraino, der für die Times rezensiert, schreibt, das Buch sei „reich an Anekdoten und Primärquellen, aber etwas arm an großen Ideen.” Er wünschte, Buruma würde „tiefer eintauchen.” Er sagt damit, das Buch habe keinen analytischen Rahmen. Kein Argument. Keine Struktur, um zu verstehen, warum all das geschah oder was es bedeutet.

Wie könnte es das auch, angesichts dessen, was es bezwecken soll?

Und doch befürwortet er die „Liebesbrief”-Rahmung trotzdem. Er nennt das Buch eine „leidenschaftliche Herausforderung an die zersetzende Kraft der Gleichgültigkeit.”

Gleichgültigkeit war für Berlin nicht zersetzend.

Gleichgültigkeit funktionierte für Berlin.

Sie ist genau das, was die Konzerte am Laufen hielt, die Fußballspiele füllte, den Kaffee während des Völkermords fließen ließ. Die Maschine brauchte keine Begeisterung. Bis heute missbilligt Berlin Emotionen und warnt vor Beweisen. Sie brauchte keine Spuren, nur Menschen, die weiterhin auftauchten, damit die Verbrechen weitergehen konnten. Das taten sie. Ein „Urlaubszug” nach Auschwitz ermöglichte es Berlinern, die Gaskammern des Massentodes in Aktion zu beobachten. Die Nazis bauten spezielle gläserne Beobachtungsluken zur Inspektion. Dann kehrten die Berliner revitalisiert in ihre Stadt zurück, um sich über ihr eigenes „Überleben” auszulassen, das von der effizienten systematischen Auslöschung der Juden abhing.

Liebesbriefe an die Stadt der Toten

Die Berliner haben bis heute eine Tradition: Sie legen Blumen und Kerzen auf Nazi-Gräber in der ganzen Stadt. Diese Nazis werden offen betrauert, ohne Entschuldigung, in der Stadt, die emotionale Zurschaustellungen nicht mag. Wenn sie doch nur noch einen Tag gelebt hätten, um noch mehr Nachbarn mit Maschinengewehren niederzumähen, noch mehr Reichtum gewaltsam umzuverteilen. Sie werden auf eine sehr eigentümliche Weise in Ehren gehalten.

Auf dem Militärfriedhof am Columbiadamm erscheinen jeden November Kränze von Gruppen, die Wehrmachtstote ehren. Ein „Traditionsverband der Freunde des ehemaligen Schutzgebietes Deutsch-Südwestafrika” hinterlässt Schleifen mit „patriotischen Grüßen” an einem Denkmal für die Soldaten, die den Völkermord an den Herero verübten. Als Neuköllns Bezirksregierung aufgefordert wurde, das Denkmal zu entfernen, fügte sie eine Tafel hinzu, die das Wort „Völkermord” ganz gezielt ausließ.

Reinhard Heydrich, der Architekt der Endlösung, liegt noch immer auf dem Invalidenfriedhof im Zentrum Berlins begraben. Es ist eine Touristenattraktion für diejenigen, die dem Nationalsozialismus etwas Liebe zeigen wollen. Der Grabstein wurde entfernt, aber der Leichnam nicht. Der Friedhof ist heute ein geschütztes Denkmal, vom Staat gepflegt, als Attraktion beworben. 2019 öffnete jemand mit Insiderwissen über die Lage das Grab – um zu betonen, dass Heydrich nie wirklich weg war.

Das Sinti-und-Roma-Denkmal – ein symbolisches Grab für 500.000 ermordete Menschen – wird durch ein Tunnelprojekt der Deutschen Bahn bedroht. Das Holocaust-Mahnmal selbst enthält keine Namen, keine Inschriften, keine jüdischen Symbole. Seine Anti-Graffiti-Beschichtung wurde von einer Degussa-Tochtergesellschaft hergestellt – derselben Unternehmensfamilie, die Zyklon B produzierte.

So sieht also ein Liebesbrief an Berlin aus, wird uns gesagt. Die Täter erheben sich wieder. Die historischen Bodenmarkierungen werden entfernt. Die Opfer bekommen ein abstraktes Mahnmal ohne Namen. Und alle paar Jahre schreibt jemand mit familiärer Verbindung zur Kriegsmaschinerie ein Buch, das sagt, die meisten Menschen hätten sich einfach angepasst, also wer könnte ihnen vorwerfen, nicht gegangen zu sein.

Das ist keine Geschichtsschreibung. Das ist „wie der Vater, so der Sohn” – die Auslöschung von Völkermordopfern des Familienunternehmens, um die Dividenden weiterfließen zu lassen. Liebe als Hass.