Defending the Death Penalty Law for Terrorists: Court and Exceptions

I’m telling you in the simplest, clearest way, this law is a historic law.

First, the claim“ What will the High Court do?”— first of all, the fact is,

the High Court has not even issued an interim order against the law.

But if the High Court,

say the High Court strikes it down, then what, as a legislator I should do nothing,

sit under a blanket, because the High Court will or won’t act?

So let’s deal with the High Court, with whoever wants to

strike this down. Second thing, another claim,

it doesn’t apply to Arab citizens of Israel. That’s true. That’s true,

it doesn’t apply to Arab citizens of Israel. But it applies to 80%.

Eighty percent of the attackers who come from Judea and Samaria.

So it’s like the Exodus from Egypt.

All those who say“ Where are the zucchini? Where are the onions?”,

suddenly remember Egypt. If before this it was zero, they didn’t execute anyone,

and if from now on, after this law, they execute 80%, thank God, that’s very good.

And the third claim, which made me laugh the most,

is that he thinks the law is not clear.

The law is very clear, very explicit, a mandatory punishment.

Right, There are special arguments that,

if they apply, you can sentence the terrorist to life in prison. What can you do?

You are in the coalition,

you are in some kind of negotiation. I wanted 100%,

others in the coalition wanted 50%, 40%, 30%. So we arrived at a law of 80%.

Really, for once, give some credit, I say to these sourpusses,

and understand that what I am doing here, they did not do for 30 or 40 years.

There were all kinds of parties that talked about a death penalty law,

a death penalty law, no one ever brought it.