Emma Graham-Harrison

And then even inside Israel, where it would be applied in civilian courts, so there would be different provisions, you still have this racist component that it's aimed primarily at Palestinians.

And it's still been really heavily criticised.

So basically, as soon as it was passed, we saw a whole range of Israeli human rights groups filing suit in the Supreme Court to have it thrown out.

And it should be said it had a clear majority.

It was supported by 62 lawmakers, which is a very thin majority.

There's one thing to argue for the death penalty as a part of a judicial system, to argue that it's a deterrent, although lots of evidence shows it's not.

That is not what Ben-Gavir is doing.

Ben-Gavir seems to be sort of celebrating, really, a sort of culture of execution.

Yeah, so this is a new law that sets up tribunals.

So what's new is not the law or the sort of details of the crimes.

It's the way in which people accused of taking part in October 7th are going to be put on trial.

And it sets up these essentially military tribunals that...

have raised concern among human rights advocates here because they do away with or scale back a lot of provisions that are considered pretty integral to a fair trial.

So these tribunals, they create special military courts to try people accused of committing crimes on October 7th and against hostages who were held in Gaza.

Judges will be appointed by the military for fixed terms, which raises concerns about judicial independence.

They can change rules of procedure and evidence in order to expedite the trials and protect victims and survivors.

Obviously, you can understand the concern that people who've lived through the atrocities on October 7th or through captivity should be protected.

But doing that

at the cost of justice is a big concern.

There's a default that defendants don't have to be present themselves in court so that they can participate by video.