Dr. Salem AlKetbi is a UAE political analyst
Following the societal shockwave of October 7th, the Israeli Knesset has unleashed a legislative torrent. These new laws represent a complete redrawing of terrorist deterrence, the forging of a stricter security and legal bulwark, and a mandate for media alignment with the state’s highest interests.
The death penalty’s revival for nationalistic murders is, without question, the pinnacle of a legal and political escalation that began with the Hamas terrorist massacre. This has made the bill an existential necessity against the threat of recurring terror.
I believe this historic measure cements the deterrence principle, broadcasting a clear message about Israeli society’s determination for the eradication of terrorism.
In this context, it must be said that the madman Yahya Sinwar’s wish for a fateful transformation of Israeli reality did come true. He just brought about a complete inversion of his hopes.
As I always repeat, Sinwar did manage to force a colossal change on the ground. Through the October 7th massacre, however, he provoked a total overhaul of security and policy within Israeli society and its institutions. The impact was not just a military act but a temblor in Israel’s legislative bedrock.
The event became a major flashpoint, triggering a fundamental reset of deterrence and driving society and politicians toward a new preference for uncompromising self-defense by all means necessary.
In truth, this painful history has only confirmed that the ghost of terrorism will not recede without penalties that have maximum impact, decisive punishments that can finally end the cycle of impunity. This became especially clear after former terrorists received pardons in prisoner swaps, a reality that now threatens the very credibility of Israeli justice in the public eye. At the same time, it offers a false hope of terror without consequence.
The media oversight bill passed by the Knesset is likewise a qualitative leap, a transition from an age of media latitude to one of message discipline, all to serve state security and public safety.
The recent attacks undeniably exposed the fragility of traditional censorship when facing the dangers of new media and social platforms. Freedom of expression was weaponized for spreading hatred and hostility, for targeting Israel and its citizens, and for the encouragement of terrorist acts.
From a security standpoint, this new censorship push in the wartime reality after October 7th has a renewed legitimacy. The media is not an independent power when the preservation of society and citizen safety is at stake. It is, rather, a partner in building stability and a counterforce to attempts at sowing chaos or spreading panic.
Recent laws have granted expanded authority to internal security and the Israeli police for opening investigations into incitement and hostile organizations, removing the need for prior judicial approvals.
In my view, these laws can give security agencies a green light for preemption, allowing them to confront crime and terrorism with a toolkit of more stringent and effective legal instruments, all for the assurance of civil peace and internal stability.
This move was, in reality, a measure intended to close gaps. It addresses vulnerabilities exploited by terror groups in the past, groups that benefited from the roadblocks of slow judicial procedure, which limited Israel’s capacity for a timely confrontation with growing internal threats.
Looking at the new law for deporting the families of terrorists, we see a deterrence expansion that now touches the terrorists’ social ecosystem. Research from Israeli national security shows that the true fear for these perpetrators is not individual punishment so much as their families’ fate. This perspective, without a doubt, creates a new deterrence climate, curbing the phenomenon of family encouragement or the quiet tolerance of incitement.
If these laws take effect, a strategic Israeli vision can take shape. It is a vision of national deterrence with multiple layers: severe penalties for terrorists, stringent media supervision, expanded security powers, and extraordinary laws for complicit families. This entire outlook aims to anchor the principle of total community security in every corner of the legal, political, and social framework.
One cannot view this legislation separately from the historical frame of the October 7th massacre. That was the moment that gave new definition to Israeli national security concepts and provided a decisive popular mandate for the state and its leaders to engineer a course correction. These laws are a direct response, designed to seal the breaches and build the deterrence wall that has become a national necessity against the recurring tide of terror.
We are standing at a watershed in the legal and political history of Israel. It is certain that if the legislative transformations happens today, it will define the style and substance of deterrence and confrontation for many years to come.
All of this is, I believe, a reflection of an overwhelming public will, a desire to construct a security and legal apparatus that affirms the primacy of protecting Israel’s multi-ethnic and multireligious society. This holds true even if its severity at times bypasses the stringent democratic norms for which Israel is known. It is a trade-off for preserving peace and regional stability in general, as it will reduce the peripheral wars and battles that are a constant obstacle to stability over the long term, if not permanently.