When the Death Penalty Is Not an Option: Procedural and Linguistic Strategies in Sentencing Palestinian Defendants in Military Courts’ Terrorism Cases

Israel’s military courts are legally authorized to impose capital punishment in terrorism cases, yet no executions have been carried out since their establishment in 1967. This study examines how military judges systematically navigate between maintaining capital punishment as a theoretical option while consistently avoiding its imposition or implementation. Drawing on Dan-Cohen’s concepts of “acoustic separation” and “selective transmission,” the analysis reveals three interconnected judicial strategies to avert the death penalty: procedural mechanisms creating administrative barriers to execution; strategic use of religious and cultural references establishing solidarity with relevant audiences; and linguistic techniques simultaneously denouncing terrorism while justifying the avoidance of capital punishment. Military courts maintain legitimacy in a complex conflict zone by balancing public demands for harsh punishment of perpetrators of terrorism with institutional constraints and security considerations. While expressing strong condemnation through culturally resonant references, judges systematically invoke procedural rules to convert death sentences to life imprisonment. This study contributes to understanding judicial decision-making in conflict zones and illuminates how the Israeli military courts navigate competing demands in politically charged environments.