The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on Tuesday approved the text of a bill that would establish a special military tribunal to prosecute Hamas’s Nukhba terrorists and accomplices for crimes committed during the October 7 attacks – including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – while also barring their release in future hostage deals, according to a Knesset press briefing.
Having cleared the committee stage, the bill is expected to be brought to the Knesset plenum for a first reading, subject to a revote in the committee.
The proposed legislation, initiated by committee chair MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party) and co-sponsored by MK Yulia Malinovsky (Yisrael Beytenu), would channel indictments to a military court established under emergency regulations, with panels headed by retired district court judges serving as officers, and appeals heard by a panel that could include a retired Supreme Court justice. Rulings would be decided by a majority of judges, and any death sentence would automatically be reviewed on appeal, even if the defendant does not file one.
Placing prosecutorial responsibility
At the center of Tuesday’s debate was a dispute over where prosecutorial responsibility should lie. A representative of the Military Advocate General’s Corps, which oversees military prosecutions, warned that the IDF opposes placing the proceedings under military responsibility. The representative argued that prosecution of the October 7 perpetrators should be handled by Israel’s civilian justice system as a national task, and that moving it to the army could invite intensified international criticism that would complicate the IDF’s operational role.
Rothman, however, signaled the committee is moving ahead with the military-court model after examining civilian alternatives, saying that final decisions would be made by the political echelon and that issues raised by defense officials would be addressed ahead of the bill’s second and third readings.
Under the current draft, the law would apply to Hamas terrorists and accomplices alleged to have taken part in acts of terror, murder, rape, kidnapping, and looting from October 7 through October 10, and also to offenses committed afterward against the hostages.
Proceedings would generally follow civilian rules of evidence and procedure, with limited flexibility for the court to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. Hearings would be broadcast on a dedicated website, unless the court orders closed proceedings. Individual sessions would be audiovisually documented and preserved in the state archives. Defendants would be able to select licensed Israeli counsel or attorneys from the West Bank.
The bill also proposes establishing a ministerial steering committee, chaired by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and including the justice, defense, and foreign ministers, tasked with coordinating government preparations and prosecution policy for October 7 cases.
One of the most controversial provisions – a categorical ban on releasing October 7 suspects, defendants, or convicts in hostage deals – drew criticism even among lawmakers who otherwise backed advancing the legislation.
Democrats MK Gilad Kariv said his party’s support at this stage reflected the need for coordinated legislation in response to an unprecedented event. However, he argued that restricting the government’s ability to negotiate hostage deals was inappropriate and should not be entrenched in law, framing the matter as an executive prerogative involving life-and-death decisions.
Yesh Atid MK Yoav Segalovitz likewise conditioned continued support on full coordination among all relevant bodies, while stressing he remained opposed to placing the proceedings in the hands of the military.
Rothman touted the cross-coalition alignment around the bill, with the committee’s vote including lawmakers from both coalition and opposition factions. The sole dissent came from Hadash-Ta’al MK Ofer Cassif, who said October 7 perpetrators must be punished but warned against what he described as a tribunal that bypasses existing legal safeguards and grants excessive political influence over the process.
Progress on legislation delayed for months
The legislation has moved through multiple iterations amid prolonged debate over the proper forum for prosecutions and the risks posed to hostages during earlier stages of the war. Per reports, progress on the framework was delayed for months, in part due to concerns about implications for negotiations and international legitimacy.
The bill’s sponsors have argued that the October 7 attack must be framed as crimes of international legal gravity – an approach they say is intended to strengthen Israel’s ability to pursue accountability in a way that can withstand scrutiny beyond its borders.
The committee is expected to return to the bill for further deliberations ahead of its second and third readings, including unresolved questions such as staffing, victims’ rights provisions, and budgetary implications raised during the discussion.
Keshet Neev contributed to this report.