Bill’s sponsors say judicial procedures would allow courts to handle large numbers of October 7 defendants while preserving evidence, public documentation, victims’ rights, and due process
Israeli lawmakers are advancing a bill to create a special judicial framework for prosecuting defendants accused of involvement in the October 7 massacre, arguing that Israel’s existing anti-terror laws were not designed for an attack of that scale, complexity, and historical weight.
The proposal, drafted jointly by coalition and opposition lawmakers, would establish special procedures for trying participants in the October 7 attacks, including dedicated judicial panels, adapted evidentiary rules, accelerated proceedings, public documentation, expanded rights for victims and families, and possible death sentences for the most severe crimes. Its sponsors are presenting it as separate from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s broader push to expand the death penalty for terrorists.
Materials released by the bill’s sponsors describe the legislation as built around three stated goals: a fast, focused, and uncompromising legal process; a voice for the victims; and permanent remembrance. The sponsors frame the proposal not only as a legal instrument but also as a moral and historical declaration meant to turn the prosecution of suspected October 7 attackers into an act of justice for future generations.
This is the modern Eichmann trial
“This is the modern Eichmann trial,” opposition lawmaker Yulia Malinovsky of Yisrael Beitenu said during a press conference alongside Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Chairman Simcha Rothman and Justice Minister Yariv Levin. “Just as there was Nuremberg and later Eichmann, this is what this law creates.”
Israel has carried out capital punishment only twice: the 1948 execution of IDF officer Meir Tobianski, who was convicted by a military tribunal during the War of Independence and posthumously exonerated the following year, and the 1962 hanging of Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust. By invoking Eichmann and Nuremberg, the bill’s sponsors are framing the October 7 trials not only as criminal proceedings but also as a national act of documentation and historical judgment.
Rothman presented the legislation as an unusual moment of political unity around an event he said could not be treated as an ordinary criminal case.
“This is not a partisan event, and not a personal event,” Rothman said. “It is a national event.”
He said lawmakers who “normally cannot agree on which side the sun rises and which side it sets” worked together in “complete harmony” on the bill.
“The October 7 massacre was not an attack on a specific community or a specific individual,” Rothman said. “It was an attack on the entire Jewish people standing against enemies who seek to destroy it.”
Lawmakers framed the bill as a response to an attack they said ordinary criminal procedure cannot adequately handle. The proposed framework is meant to address large numbers of defendants, sensitive evidence, victims’ participation, public access, and the long-term preservation of trial materials.
The legislation would apply to crimes committed by enemy attackers between October 7 and October 10, 2023, and frames the relevant offenses as including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the Jewish people.
Levin said the main challenge was avoiding a process that would take many years under regular criminal procedure. “If these proceedings were conducted at the normal pace of legal proceedings in Israel, it would take an extraordinarily long time before they reached a conclusion,” Levin said.
The justice minister said the drafters tried to build a framework that would move faster without sacrificing the credibility of the process. “We invested enormous effort and thought into creating the optimal combination between the desire to work efficiently and the need to preserve the essential principles required for a fair trial,” he said.
Under the proposed framework, the main trial panels would include three judges, at least one of whom is a district-level judge. Appeals would be heard by a three-judge panel headed by a retired Supreme Court justice and joined by senior district-level judges.
The scale of the cases is one reason lawmakers say a separate framework is needed. Levin said Israel is dealing with “hundreds of defendants” and legal questions that ordinary trials are not built to manage.
“There are solutions here for very complex questions, including how to conduct a trial when there may be 20, 30, or 40 defendants in the same case,” Levin said.
Rothman said the precise number of suspects remains classified, but confirmed that the scope has grown as investigations have advanced.
“When we began this process, the numbers were in the dozens,” he said. “As time passed, more intelligence was uncovered, more investigations matured, and the numbers developed.”
The bill would allow courts to depart from ordinary procedural and evidentiary rules when necessary to uncover the truth in exceptionally large cases, while still preserving the fairness of the proceedings. The sponsors cite examples such as written testimony in limited circumstances, preliminary proceedings before a single judge, and rules meant to help manage indictments involving many defendants.
The proposed framework also places unusual emphasis on public memory. Proceedings would be filmed, archived, and made accessible through a dedicated digital platform, creating a record for the courts, Israeli society, and future generations.
“We wrote into the law that the trial will be filmed and broadcast,” Malinovsky said. “There will be a dedicated website and archives in order to preserve the memory.” Malinovsky suggested that part of the purpose is to force renewed international attention on October 7.
The world forgot October 7. The media forgot. People moved on to other issues. These trials will remind the world what happened.
“The world forgot October 7,” she said. “The media forgot. People moved on to other issues. These trials will remind the world what happened.”
Levin opened the event by framing the legislation as a moral duty to those murdered, wounded, kidnapped, and left behind.
“For the memory of the murdered, for their families, for the wounded, for the hostages, and for the entire people,” Levin said, “we must fulfill our highest moral obligation and bring the perpetrators of the massacre to justice.”
The legislation would expand protections and rights for victims and bereaved families, including the right to receive information about the proceedings, protection of privacy, separation from defendants where needed, and access to public broadcasts and trial documentation.
Malinovsky described the legislation as the parliamentary response to a day when many Israelis felt powerless.
We are not soldiers. We are legislators. This is our battlefield.
“We are not soldiers,” she said. “We are legislators. This is our battlefield.”
The proposal does include capital punishment. Rothman said the law would allow courts to impose the harshest penalties available under Israeli law.
“The law says clearly that the harshest punishments in Israel’s legal system will apply, including the death penalty,” Rothman said.
The framework would require a political-level determination before a death sentence could be carried out: The defense minister, after consulting the justice minister, would decide the timing and manner of implementation. Regulations governing implementation would require approval by the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee and the Knesset.
Still, Malinovsky stressed that the decision would remain in the hands of judges.
“In the end, these are decisions of Israeli judges,” she said. “The entire system is built so the process will be efficient and fast, but while preserving the principles of justice, including public proceedings and victims’ rights.”
That balance—speed, documentation, punishment, and due process—is likely to be central to any legal debate over the measure. Special evidentiary rules, accelerated proceedings, filmed trials, and capital punishment could draw scrutiny from legal experts, civil liberties advocates, and international observers, even if the bill receives broad political support in the Knesset.
The proposal also includes an unusual provision on legal representation. The state would not provide representation through Israel’s public defender system as a default rule. If a defendant lacks a lawyer, the court could appoint a private defense attorney to ensure a fair trial, with the attorney’s fees paid from tax funds Israel transfers to the Palestinian Authority rather than directly from Israeli taxpayers.
Another sensitive issue is a proposed amendment that would prevent participants in the October 7 massacre from being released in future prisoner or hostage deals.
“We believed it would not be appropriate for participants in the October 7 massacre ever to be released in any future agreement,” Malinovsky said. “This is also a very clear moral statement.”
Such a clause would carry political and diplomatic weight. Israel has repeatedly released convicted prisoners in past exchange deals, and any legal restriction on future releases could affect the government’s room for maneuver in hostage negotiations or future agreements.
Rothman acknowledged that the clause raised legal and political difficulties, including within the coalition and opposition, but said he would support it.
“I know there are complexities surrounding this proposal for many reasons,” Rothman said. “But I will support it, and I will call on my colleagues in the coalition to support it as well.”
The legislation would also adapt detention periods to the needs of the investigation and prosecution, modifying certain deadlines and mechanisms to reflect the scale and complexity of the October 7 cases.
The lawmakers defended the bill against expected legal challenges and international criticism. Levin said the framework had been drafted with attention to how the trials would be viewed abroad, especially in the United States and other Western countries.
“There are countries in the world that support terrorism and support Hamas regardless of what happens,” Levin said. “We certainly do not act according to their dictates.” Still, he argued that most countries would understand the need to prosecute the attackers. “I think that in other countries there is understanding and agreement that these terrorists must stand trial,” Levin said. “Both for justice and for the future.”
“When people see how these proceedings are conducted, they will recognize them as fair trials,” he added.
Malinovsky said she does not expect the law to be struck down by Israel’s High Court of Justice, arguing that it was drafted with legal advisers and relevant state bodies.
“When you know how to legislate wisely, and you understand the limits of power, you reach the desired result,” she said. “This law is balanced.”
The proposal also outlines a logistical and security framework around the trials, including a dedicated Israel Prison Service security unit for the military court, detention facilities and budgets, information-sharing mechanisms among justice and security agencies, and a centralized registry of defendants and witnesses, subject to legal restrictions.
Rothman said the bill is expected to receive support from about 110 members of Knesset, an unusually high number in Israel’s divided 120-member parliament.
“This is the Knesset at its best,” he said. “If I was elected for this law and for this moment, then I feel I fulfilled my mission.”
For the bill’s sponsors, the legislation is a historic framework for justice after the deadliest attack in Israel’s history. For Israel’s legal system, it may become a test of whether exceptional procedures, public memory, victims’ rights, capital punishment, adapted evidentiary rules, security logistics, and fair-trial guarantees can be made to fit inside one courtroom.
