Israel’s dark turn and Iran’s death penalty machine

David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of the State of Israel, whose tenacity helped found it, was an avowed secular socialist.

Yet he closely read the Bible and had a deep understanding of the scriptures.

A favourite biblical passage that he recited to the Knesset (Israeli parliament) on his vision of his country’s example to the world was a verse from the Book of Isaiah (49:6):

“I will also make thee a light to the nations.”

Last week, more than 50 years after Ben-Gurion’s death, and in the same Knesset, a starkly different image of Israel was displayed.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, a leader of the extreme right-wing Religious Zionism party, is neither secular nor socialist. And other than membership of Knesset and a key government ministry (national security), he has nothing remotely in common with Ben-Gurion, the country’s modern founder.

However, Ben-Gvir’s party is an essential prop in the ruling coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This government, in turn, is the most right-wing in a country whose first three decades were dominated by Ben-Gurion’s left-leaning Labour movement.

Last Monday, Ben-Gvir, who was convicted of terror offences in the past, piloted through the Knesset a vote on a bill designed to apply the death penalty to terrorists. Its language implies it will only be operative against Palestinian, not Jewish, terrorists.

Never mind darkening “the light to the nations” trope of Ben-Gurion; after the vote, a triumphalist Ben-Gvir lit up social media by popping open a bottle of kosher sparkling wine.

As Daniel Shapiro, a national security specialist, wrote in The Atlantic:

“The performance was gross and gloating, but not inconsistent with his record. In recent months, the extremist Ben-Gvir and his parliamentary faction replaced the yellow-ribboned lapel pins widely worn while Israeli hostages were held in Gaza with yellow noose pins.”

This bill (alongside other democratic predations) undermines Israel’s claim to being the sole outpost of democracy in a region led by autocrats, theocrats and military dictators. Indeed, Netanyahu describes Israel’s position in the Middle East as “a villa in the jungle”.

Though the strong pushback against the death penalty bill suggests some vigour in “the villa”, even if its foundations are being white-anted by Netanyahu’s government itself.

While the bill might erode Israel’s already battered international image, it’s unlikely ever to be applied.

Already, the Supreme Court has been petitioned to axe it due to its discriminatory provisions, and a range of civil society activists and jurists have mobilised against it. And the bill itself requires certain evidentiary tests that could mitigate against ever enforcing the extreme penalty in the improbable event of the courts upholding it.

Meanwhile, under the fog of the current Iran war, supporters of Ben-Gvir and other maximalists (who believe in a greater Israel from “the river to the sea” that might strike a familiar chord here) have also been terrorising Palestinians in the West Bank.

Here too, the opposition has not been confined to Israel, but responses from a Jewish diaspora in the world have been a feature.

One of several people determined that Israel should not be cast in the dark shadow of Ben-Gvir’s extremism is SA businessman Sir Mick Davis, now based in London.

Two years ago, he co- founded the “London Initiative” to pursue the twinned ideas of a mature liberal democracy and the pursuit of “a secure peace” (along with social fairness for all Israeli citizens regardless of ethnicity).

This month, in the face of unprecedented levels of violence by Jewish extremists in the West Bank, Davis obtained over 4 000 signatures for a letter sent to the president of Israel demanding “an end to this terror and the impunity that enables it”.

As Davis recounts, Israeli President Isaac Herzog “neither ignored nor scorned us but replied, sharing the conviction that such violence “contradicts Jewish ethical tradition and the values on which Israel was founded”. He confirmed that he has demanded that “all available means be used to bring perpetrators to justice”.

It is easy to dismiss the effects of petitioning and note that while of symbolic weight, the Israeli presidency lacks the political heft of Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir. Though elections later this year could signal a change at the top.

Still, examples of such determined opposition and a reclaiming of ethical values for a state founded in the shadow of the Nazi holocaust are noteworthy.

For many of the implacable Israel-haters in the world, this will be of little matter. They too won’t have any answer to the quandary outlined by Daniel Shapiro – author of the cited article – that accused Ben-Gvir of “Smirking Past the Gallows”.

Shapiro’s intense dislike of both that politician and his “ugly law” doesn’t prevent his reflection on “a genuine Israeli dilemma, which helps explain its passage”.

He writes:

“Israel’s experience with terror – the country counts thousands of victims since its founding – has left its leaders perpetually looking for tools to deter it. Diplomatic compromise has failed again and again, with plenty of blame to go around… and the common practice of holding those who commit acts of terror for lengthy sentences has been described by critics as an incentive for further terror.”

Of course, one answer is that “the villa” risks becoming a wilderness if it too applies the law of the jungle.

The debate though might be theoretical in Israel, since only twice in its 78-year history has the death penalty (which has been on the statute books since 1948) been imposed, the last time being the execution of top Nazi, Adolf Eichmann, in 1962.

But a different set of statistics is offered by Iran, the country committed to both the annihilation of Israel and the prime exporter of the terror that confounds easy resolution.

The current focus on the war in Iran also obscures the fact of the lack of international response to that country’s internal violence against its own citizens. For so-called “progressives”, this constitutes “a straightforward morality test and the left failed it (dismally)” in the description of George Chesterton writing in The Telegraph.

In Iran, though, there is nothing abstract about state-imposed executions.

According to the credible Iran Human Rights organisation, featured in The Guardian on 2 April, “at least 145 people have been executed in 2026 so far, in addition to 400-plus executions reported but not verified”. Since both the internet has been banned by the state and there is no free media, such verification is impossible.

Verified by the state, though, was the execution last month of three men hanged in public after being arrested over the January protests that rocked the country. Among their number was a 19-year-old wrestling star, Saleh Mahammadi. All were convicted of the crime of moharebeh, or waging war against God, according to state media. In 2025, Iran executed at least 1, 639 of its citizens.

Just two weeks back in Limpopo, President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered a staunch defence of SA’s “principled nonaligned foreign policy”, as he described it.

In pursuit of this ideal, on 4 April, according to a note by the Iranian foreign ministry, International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola held phone talks with his Iranian counterpart, Seyed Abbas Araghchi.

According to Iran’s readout of the call (uncontradicted by Pretoria):

“Ronald Lamola expressed condolences over the martyrdom of the Supreme Leader, a number of officials, high commanders, and Iranian citizens during the US and Israeli military aggression.”

While the readout mentions SA’s “stance condemning US and Israeli apartheid regime’s attacks against Iran”, unmentioned by Lamola is Iran’s weaponisation of death sentences against its own citizens.

If this is a “principled nonaligned foreign policy” in practice, then one marvels at what an unprincipled and misaligned foreign policy might resemble.