General

Justice in Oz’s Multicultural Police State

/12 Comments/in /by

Nationalist activist Joel Davis granted bail after 133 days in isolation for Telegram post

Nationalist activist Joel Davis has been released on bail after spending 133 days in solitary confinement in an unsafe and dilapidated Sydney prison for an alleged Telegram post.

Mr Davis, 31, was arrested at a Bondi café on November 20 and charged with “using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend” for allegedly urging his followers to “rhetorically rape” federal MP Allegra Spender, and was refused bail on three previous occasions.

He appeared in the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday where he applied for bail again in front of Justice Natalie Adams, who found he did not present an unacceptable risk to the community, and ordered his release from Long Bay Correctional Complex.

Justice Adams imposed almost 20 bail conditions, including that Mr Davis not be in possession of a smart phone, not use social media or encrypted devices or apps, report to police three times a week, and not contact or approach Ms Spender or NSW Liberal leader Kellie Sloane, who the court heard he had also allegedly posted about on his Telegram channel.

Mr Davis is also banned from entering the MPs’ electorates of Wentworth and Vaucluse in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, and from going within 100 metres of their offices, and must take part in a program run by the NSW Court Chaplains’ Association.

He will be required to reside with his mother in Sydney’s west, and Justice Adams told the court she would not have released him to his previous residence in Bondi, in part due to alleged online comments about the Jewish community.

The court heard Mr Davis was now facing nine new charges laid on March 20 in relation to the post, and that if the case went to a trial before a jury in the District Court it could occur as late as the “backend of 2027”.

In handing down her decision Justice Adams noted that Mr Davis had spent more than four months in “onerous” and “unusual conditions” in custody, and that he had only had one visit since his arrest on November 20.

“Because of his suspected political affiliations he’s being kept in segregation and hasn’t been outside since the 24th of December and is only having a shower once every four days,” she told the court.

Mr Davis’s barrister Sebastian De Brennan, assisted by Sheena Swan for Paladin Lawyers, told the court it was his client’s first time in custody, that he missed the birth of his child, and that his experience behind bars had been “salutary” and made him “examine how he expressed his views”.

Mr De Brennan presented a report from a psychologist who stated he that while Mr Davis has not changed his beliefs he has reflected on how he communicates them, and assessed that Mr Davis was a man on the “precipice of change”.

Barrister Sheridan Goodwin for the Crown asked the court to refuse bail, arguing that Mr Davis “posed a risk to the emotional safety of other individuals”, and that there was an unacceptable risk he would reoffend or “incite others” to make similar social media posts.

But Justice Adams found the risk of “breaches to social cohesion” could be ameliorated by the strict conditions she imposed, and that the evidence before her suggested Mr Davis would comply with the conditions.

“The applicant holds extreme political views and had expressed them in the past, but it seems to me the applicant may have changed his mindset, he is now the father of a young baby, and is going to have to live with missing the birth for rest of his life,” she told the court.

She told the court that while Mr Davis knew he was due to become a father at the time of the alleged offending, the birth was a “pro-social factor that should help him comply with bail conditions”.

Justice Adams further found that all of his current charges, including for a belt buckle with an eagle on it in South Australia and for “hate speech” in Victoria, related to his former membership of the National Socialist Network.

“[The NSN] is now disbanded, so that platform no longer exists,” she told the court.

She also noted that in a police interview after his arrest Mr Davis had insisted that he and his former organisation were “non-violent except in self-defence”, and that he had no history of violence.

The court heard Mr Davis’s alleged post was made in response to Ms Spender calling for him and other then-members of the NSN to be jailed for a protest against Jewish lobby influence in Australian politics outside NSW Parliament on November 8.

NSW Police last week confirmed in a note to parliament that the protesters broke no laws during the rally, which they approved beforehand.

Header image: Left, right, Joel Davis at demonstrations in Melbourne and Syddney (supplied)

 
Justice Natalie Adams NSW Supreme Court
 
Stephen Wells Telegram post on Joel Davis’ release on bail:
[2/04/2026 8:40 PM] Stephen Wells Triggers Everyone: I am conflicted about Joel Davis being granted bail today. On the plus side he is out, he will be free from the horrendous treatment he was subjected to in prison. 133 days in solitary confinement is over. He has abiity again, to get sunshine on his face, have a shower every day. Read books. All things that were denied him. He gets to see his baby son for the first time since he was born and his partner and mother of his child.

On the negative side of the equation are the bail conditions imposed upon him and the fact that to refuse to accept those bail conditions would have meant rotting in that jail cell until the end of 2027, which is how long it is estimated it will take before all of his bullshit charges make it to trial.

From the Noticer:

“Justice Adams imposed almost 20 bail conditions, including that Mr Davis not be in possession of a smart phone, not use social media or encrypted devices or apps, report to police three times a week, and not contact or approach Ms Spender or NSW Liberal leader Kellie Sloane, who the court heard he had also posted about on his Telegram channel.

“Mr Davis is also banned from entering the MPs’ electorates of Wentworth and Vaucluse in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, and from going within 100 metres of their offices, and must take part in a program run by the NSW Chaplains’ Association.
He will be required to reside with his mother in Sydney’s west, and Justice Adams told the court she would not have released him to his previous residence in Bondi, in part due to alleged online comments about the Jewish community.”

The only Bail condition that was appropriate was that of not contacting or posting about Ms Spender. This is the alleged victim of the alleged offence and is the only person who should be taken into consideration by the court.

Everything else that the Court has imposed is nothing less than an actual rape (not a “rhetorical” one) of the British based justice system for the purpose of deliberately silencing an opponent of the Government for an extended period of time.

This is the same thing that was done to me last year. Another bullshit charge and a trial date dragged out for months on end with bail conditions that would have silenced me whilst I waited for the system to get around to holding it.

Sign the bail conditions, or rot in jail with your presumption of innocence made into a sick farce.

I chose to rot. 110 days before the bullshit charges were dropped. Joel has already spent 133 days in jail before he even was given the option to take or refuse bail.

What would you do?

I expected that if the prosecution in my own case would have carried their nonsense to trial I would have had to wait about seven months in jail. In the worst case scenario a year. Joel’s trial is estimated to take nearly two years for the court and the prosecution to get off their corrupt and disfunctional backsides and do their jobs.

Its a disgrace. Its an outrage. Its a dysfunctional system that is less fit for purpose than the cesspool of a medieval prison than Joel was left to rot in. There can be no justice if an accused has to wait months or years in prison before he can receive it.

This situation is systemic for every accused person in the justice system, not just political prisoners like Joel or myself. On my last day in prison I shared a cell with a man who had been waiting 5 years in remand prison to go to trial on a murder charge.

Ask yourself, what if he’s innocent?

In political cases the prosecution knows it can make up any bullshit charge it likes and silence or jail the accused with impugnity. The verdict of the trial is irrelevant. The maximum jail sentence for the offense Joel is charged with is two years in jail. The maximum jail sentence for loitering for me was three months jail and for displaying “a symbol associated with Nazi ideology”, one year jail. I spent nearly four months in maximum security prison.
[2/04/2026 8:40 PM] Stephen Wells Triggers Everyone: My 15 co accused were silenced for the same amount of time, before the publicity around our cases became too politically damaging to continue the charade with and all charges were just dropped.

There has been no apology. No compensation. Just continued injustice.

I spent 4 months in jail without trial, but it could have been a year. Joel could have also faced just as much time in jail waiting for his trial as the maximum penalty for being convicted of the charge.

So what would you do if something like this happened to you? I ask you again.

Would you walk back on the things youve said to try and get out of jail as soon as possible, as Brandon Koschel did? Would you not compromise on your political beliefs but accept bail conditions that will silence you for months or years anyway, like Joel has done? Or would you sacrifice your freedom and rot in jail for as long as it took, like I did?

My personal circumstances were much easier than those of Joel or Brandon. If you believe you would follow my path, just know that when my wife begged me to take the bail conditions and come home, I nearly broke. As far as I know, neither Joel or Brandon held my views about defiance regardless of the cost, before they were jailed, either. Many people, including some friends with my political views just think I was nuts! So think twice before saying you would choose my path (even though I believe in it).

The Government’s new hate speech and hate group laws have penalties of up to 15 years in jail for bullshit. No different to the bullshit charges against Joel, Brandon, Tom Sewell, Jacob Hersant, Jim Roberts, myself or any other political dissident jailed for their views in this country over the last 5 years.

What is the best way to deal with the injustice?

Some argue that get out of jail at any cost is the best way to respond. That coerced confessions and retractions are meaningless and that its tactically better to just lie and tell our enemies what they want to hear. Get out of jail. Go home. See your loved ones again. You achieve nothing behind bars.

I argue for absolute sacrifice and defiance regardless of the cost. The smaller the thing the enemy wants from me and the greater the punishment for defying them, the more defiant I want to become. Easy to say. Potentially soul crushing to follow through with.

Others argue somewhere in between. A balance between pragmatism and idealism. Weigh up the pros and cons in each situation and then decide.

Whatever path you think you will choose, dont judge others for their choice. Until you are sitting in a cell yourself with your loved ones outside, you just dont know how it will affect you. Evaluate your choices now though, before you are arrested for some bullshit thing you might say one day. Because more and more people are going to be arrested on bullshit charges in the years to come and the penalties are only going to get harsher. Best to at least try and decide how you want to respond before hand.

Mark Wauck: Two Federalist articles on birthright citizenship

/in /by

Birthright Citizenship At The SCOTUS

Yesterday the Birthright Citizenship case was argued before the SCOTUS. Trump was in attendance. In my opinion this is a very important case, but lots was going on in geopolitics so I wasn’t able to follow the arguments. I still don’t have that amount of time, but I did see that Jonathan Turley’s takeaway was that there didn’t appear to be a clear majority. This is understandable. Notions of citizenship have deep roots in history, but the age of easy travel has changed a lot of things. I’m not suggesting that we should ignore Common Law notions of citizenship and sovereignty but, by the same token, we can’t ignore developments in travel. The history of constitutional amendments should also suggest to us that treating amendments that were passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War as dispositive for large issues of citizenship is probably misguided. In general, these matters are probably best left to the Legislative and Executive branches, in principle—no matter how they’ve screwed these things up in the past.

The Federalist ran two articles yesterday that may be useful resources for readers on this issue, at least as starting points.

In the first article, Clarence Thomas offers some common sense on the appropriate weight the Court should place on what the 14th Amendment has to say. It’s true that the 14th has traditionally been interpreted—for 150 years or so—to allow birthright citizenship. But reasonable people should be able to see that that is not a self evident interpretation:

If SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ It Will Do So At Its Own Peril

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.

As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.

While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.

The emancipation of African American slaves—non-citizens who had been present in the US for generations—presented an obvious and urgent problem. The same can hardly be said for modern birthright citizens.

The second article references the SCOTUS case that is usually claimed to be definitive: Wong Kim Ark (1898). It also takes John Roberts to task for an ill considered quip, while offering what I consider to be an intelligent critique. The exchange between U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer went approximately like this:

Sauer: The 14th Amendment world is not the same world that currently exists. “Eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen.”

Roberts: It may be a “new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Dear Justice Roberts: The ‘Same Constitution’ Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies

Originalists are supposed to ask what the Constitution’s words were understood to mean at the time they were adopted. The idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment would have understood the amendment to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or customers of a birthright tourism company is risible because such problems did not exist — they are indeed part of a new world. Retrofitting the 14th Amendment to cover unprecedented circumstances is not originalist.

A few decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The case involved a man born in the United States to Chinese parents who were not citizens but were legally residing in the United States. The court ruled in his favor. But the case did not rule on whether children born to parents illegally residing in the country are granted citizenship, nor did it rule on whether the children of temporary visitors who come to the U.S. via birth tourism companies to give birth and then return to their native countries satisfy the criteria for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Extending the 14th Amendment — or Wong Kim Ark’s holding — to apply to millions of illegal aliens’ children is not originalist by any standard. If the original meaning of the text is supposed to be the guide — and the original text did not in any way foresee mass illegal migration or birth tourism — then it’s not originalist to broaden the scope of the amendment to fit the current political circumstances.

The Constitution has not changed — nor is that the debate. The debate is whether the current application of the Constitution reflects what the framers originally had in mind when drafting it.

There are multiple complicated factual issues involved in immigration law. That’s exactly why the SCOTUS should not be in the business of applying broad brush, ideologically inspired—with little grounding in history—one size fits all “solutions”. For better and/or worse, that should be the province of the elected representatives of American citizens—which SCOTUS justices are not.

Paul Craig Roberts: A Delusional President

/2 Comments/in /by

A Delusional President

Paul Craig Roberts

President Trump’s 19 minute speech tonight was an extraordinary collection of blatant lies and fantastic delusions.  He repeatedly claimed over and over that Iran was decimated.  So why isn’t the war over?  Why does it have to continue for another month?  

Trump addressed no issue.  He did not acknowledge that it is US and Israel’s radar sites that have been decimated along with American bases.  He did not acknowledge that Israeli-America has run out of interceptor missiles, and that Poland, a NATO ally, has refused Trump’s pressure to release the US missiles systems in Poland to Israel.

The facts on the ground are that Israel and US bases on the Persian Gulf are defenseless and cannot stop incoming Iranian missiles that strike at will.

Does Trump really think 19 minutes of hot air can hide the tremendous defeat that Trump has suffered from starting a war that his own hand-picked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs advised him against as the US lacked sufficient munitions to continue the war more than a few weeks?

Many hoped that tonight Trump would declare victory and with the war declared won pull out and go home.  Apparently, the powerful Israel Lobby was able to prevent Trump from extricating himself from the trap in which he foolishly placed himself.

Tonight Trump presented the world with an a delusional American president divorced from reality.  Will anyone notice–certainly C-Span’s commentator Matthew Kroenig did not–or do they, like Trump, prefer delusion to reality?

 

Poland refuses to lend Patriot missile systems for Iran war 

https://www.rt.com/news/637004-poland-refuse-us-patriot-request/

PRAY AWAY THE PRECEDENT

/2 Comments/in /by

Not American, Not Gay

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the 14th Amendment’s assurance that the children of freed slaves were citizens also means that if an 8-month-pregnant Mexican woman runs across the border and drops a baby, that baby is a citizen, too.

Which brings up the point, let’s hope the dogma doesn’t live loudly within Justice Amy Coney Barrett. That was what the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein said to Barrett during her confirmation hearings, noting that the dogma might not always align with “big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country” — such as, for example, off the top of my head, amendments added to the Constitution after a bloody Civil War to end slavery.

At the time, conservatives accused Feinstein of anti-Christian bigotry, but I thought her remarks were poetic. I’d love to be accused of having the dogma live loudly within me.

On the other hand, if the dogma living within Barrett is not Holy Scripture but the pope’s anti-American pronunciamientos on illegal immigrants, I’ll be on DiFi’s side even if it was cruel anti-papism.

While our laws say that it’s illegal to sneak into our country, uninvited, the pope says — citing Our Lady of Guadalupe— that the laws of the United States must be subordinated to his own florid assertions about the “dignity” of illegals.

The Catholic bishops continued this spirited assault on American democracy by announcing that punishing people for “the mere attempt to immigrate” (illegally) to the U.S. is “immoral,” and, further, that we are “obliged” to let in anyone who wants to come and then support them for the rest of their lives — with generous donations to Catholic Charities, no doubt.

(OK, I know we’re all thinking it, but what exactly is the church’s position on the Export-Import Bank?)

If Barrett rules in favor of our Constitution, and reaches the blindingly obvious conclusion that the post-Civil War amendments’ citizenship clause referred exclusively to recently freed slaves, I vow to stop referring to her as “that papist nut.”

On the other hand, if she goes with the gaseous blathering of a man whose own sovereign territory is protected by 40-foot walls and 135 armed Swiss Guards, then J.D. Vance has to consider becoming a Presbyterian.

MS-NOW’s legal commentators keep claiming that the Supreme Court has NEVER found that anchor babies aren’t citizens. Nor has it ever found that they are. To the contrary, court after court after court has expressly ruled that the 14th Amendment is about freed slaves and freed slaves only.

In what we legal buffs like to call “precedent,” a long string of cases made absolutely clear that the clause refers only to — I quote — “the slave race” (the Slaughterhouse Cases), “persons of the African race” (Ex parte Virginia), “the colored man” (Strauder v. West Virginia), and on and on.

As one Supreme Court decision put it, “[N]o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose” of the Civil War amendments, that “we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

Lawyers talk about the jurisdiction, residency and domicile requirements of the amendment. All true, but the larger point is: WE JUST FOUGHT A CIVIL WAR. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT? With 600,000 corpses still littering the landscape, the country did not rise up as one and shout, Wait a minute — if a century later, millions of Mexicans run across the border and have babies, damn straight those kids will be citizens!

In other Supreme Court news this week, the court struck down, 8-1, a Colorado law criminalizing “conversion therapy” — i.e., talk therapy that aims to help someone with gay tendencies quell those feelings. Colorado’s position was: We have to offer people who claim to be transgenders complex surgeries and massive doses of hormones, but if a gay wants to talk to someone about not being gay, HE MUST BE STOPPED!

Maybe The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro should write the next part. This star of the Times’ wildly popular “The Daily” podcast apparently converted not because of therapy, but because he fell in love with a girl. So it does happen, and the fact that it does isn’t an insult to gays.

In my experience, the gays angriest about the mere existence of conversion therapy are the ones who most need it. Maybe throw in anger management classes for free.

I’m no expert — I’m an expert on raising children (I have none) which I’m happy to share with any parents out there, before leaving for a cigarette and a glass of wine — but some gays are born gay. They were gay from age 5. They were gay in the womb. They’re the normal gays. Almost all of them are Republicans. (Just as our blacks are better than their blacks, our gays are way better than their gays.)

But there’s another group, who are gay either out of self-protectiveness or for revenge. Just as girls who are molested as children often become highly promiscuous to go through the same motions, but this time, they’re in control, boys who were molested as children sometimes do the same thing.

I personally know several no-longer-gay men who were sexually abused as kids — speaking of the Catholic Church. (That’s not a cheap shot; several were molested by priests.) Upon remembering the abuse, they realized they weren’t gay at all.

Incidentally, I’m not talking about Jesus-freak evangelicals like me. They all happen to be members of the liberal elite.

Then there’s another group of not-really-gay gays who just hate their parents, hate the world and want everyone to suffer, including themselves. Sodomy is their revenge (so I guess you could say they win in the end). It could have been drugs or self-harm. These days, they’re more likely to join antifa or go transgender and commit a mass shooting.

Maybe shrinks can do something for this latter group, like at least stop them from shooting up a school. But the former group is crying out for counseling. They may not even remember that they were molested. (Girls tell everyone about their trauma, boys repress bad memories — as anyone who’s ever met another human being knows.)

Then there are gays like Barbaro who are gay because it’s a good way to meet girls.

I know some normal gays who were sent to conversion therapy by their parents, and guess what? They weren’t angry. They knew it wouldn’t work, but whatever — mom wanted them to go. It didn’t work, and mom was fine.

Warning: This column is illegal in the state of Colorado.

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER

From Mark Wauck’s “Is This Trump’s Latest Plan B?”

/13 Comments/in /by

Excerpt from Mark Wauck’s “Is This Trump’s Latest Plan B?“:

As John Mearsheimer pointed out to Judge Nap this morning, Trump continues to move military assets into the region—he continues to escalate. Mearsheimer suggests two theories to account for the mess: First, Trump is a Mad King, and second, Trump now understands he’s in a no win situation and is simply “flailing” around, desperately seeking a way out—and almost all of those schemes involve escalation. Here are some brief excerpts from the Mearsheimer interview:

Trump: We’re having very good meetings both, directly and indirectly, and I think we’re getting a lot of very important points.

I.e., Trump says Iran is giving in all demands so Trump says he’ll make more demands.

Judge: In fact, these meetings don’t exist. I know. I don’t know what to say. What do you say about this?

Prof: [Laughing] The whole thing is just–it’s preposterous. The level of incoherence here is just off the charts. This is the president of the United States, the president of the most powerful country in the world. You can only wonder what other leaders around the world, other people around the world are thinking as they watch this. And it’s just hard to believe that this man is in charge of the United States.

Just as LBJ escalated in Vietnam without a winning strategy …

Trump is going up the escalation ladder. I can’t help thinking about Vietnam and how that war played itself out.

And this is the situation that Trump is in. He’s involved and he can’t walk away.

In part because of the Israelis, but even if the Israelis weren’t involved, this is the United States of America. It doesn’t walk away from a fight. That mentality is hardwired into us. So what he’s doing is he’s escalating as we read the newspapers today. What you see is that the administration is moving ground forces into the Middle East.

There’s no military solution here.

And behind closed doors there is wildeyed pessimism about where we’re headed.

And yet, the WSJ article—which Mearsheimer has read—directly states that Trump is planning to TACO, leaving Hormuz under Iranian control, and then to turn to “diplomacy.” While shifting more military assets to the region. While, according to reports, France, Spain, and Italy are now all refusing their air space to those shifts of US military assets.

Image
Image

In fact, of course, the world isn’t so simple as that, and US energy costs are also heading steadily upward.

Jewish ethics on display: Israel approves death penalty – but only for Palestinians

/4 Comments/in /by

Israel approves death penalty – but only for Palestinians

Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir
Israel’s far-rightnational security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir – Reuters

Israel has approved the death penalty for Palestinians but not for Israelis who commit the same crime.

The controversial bill, which was passed on Monday, makes execution a default sentence for Palestinians convicted in military courts of deadly terror attacks.

Sixty-two lawmakers, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favour, with 48 against the controversial bill which has been condemned by Britain.

There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present.

Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill on Sunday, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles”.

In the run-up to the vote, hard-Right national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir  had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation.

Itamar Ben-Gvir
Itamar Ben-Gvir celebrates after Israel’s parliament passed the law by 62 votes to 48 – Reuters

“We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote.

The bill will make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court.

It says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances”.

A ​group of UN experts said that the bill ⁠included vague definitions of “terrorist”, meaning the death penalty could be meted out over “conduct that is not genuinely terrorist” in nature.

Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts.

The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days.

Call for law to be annulled

The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination.

Shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment.

“The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement.

“In military courts – which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians – it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said.

In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators”, the group added.

The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds.

During the debate in parliament, Ram Ben Barak, an opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, expressed outrage at the legislation.

“Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank.

“It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.”

The legislation was introduced by Limor Son Har-Melech, a lawmaker from Ben Gvir’s party who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed.

Limor Son Har-Melech
Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech’s husband was killed in a terror attack in 2003 – Mostafa Alkharouf/Getty

“For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again,” she said. “And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.”

The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land”.

“This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimise extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added.

In February, Amnesty International urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians”.

Israel abolished the death penalty for murder in 1954. The only person ever executed in Israel after a civilian trial was Adolf Eichmann, an architect of the Holocaust, in 1962.