Can Sturgeon or the SNP survive Murrellgate?

Douglas Murray recently asked a very interesting question - What would you say if your spouse bought a luxury campervan? Now for those of you living outside the UK let me explain because this is a glorious story of embezzlement, deceit and ultimately, political downfall. Admittedly, it’s not quite in the league of William M. Tweed or Randall Cunningham in the United States but it definitely ranks amongst one of the best stories of illegality for the last few years. In sleepy and dare I suggest, somewhat nondescript Scottish politics, Nicola Sturgeon served as, until a couple of years ago, First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, while her husband, Peter Murrell was employed as the Chief Executive of the party. Now, Mr Murrell has been charged with and is pleading guilty to embezzlement to the tune of £400,000 (about $540,000) part of which included purchase of a £110,000 campervan.

In her defence, Ms Sturgeon argued she had no knowledge of her husband's criminal behaviour, arguing her salary at that time was £145,000, while her husband's salary ranged between £80 - 100,000. She argued: "None of these things [the purchases] I would have looked at and thought how on earth could he afford them? We were two people on high salaries. We don't have children. We didn't have an extensive social life, mainly because of the pressures of my job."

Now, before we continue, let's not forget, Murrell's purchases included:

·       £9,350.25 on two Bremont watches;

·       £24,324.60 on Montblanc goods;

·       £24,495.50 on items from Smythson;

·       £6,085.86 on Dyson products;

·       £8,991.65 on coffee machines;

·       £1,782.99 on cup warmers;

·       £5,319.28 on Le Creuset products;

·       £1,990.50 on umbrellas;

·       £2,618.16 on two salt and pepper grinders from Lalique;

·       £1,056 on reed diffusers and candles from Jo Malone;

·       £3,500 on a hand chased silver wine coaster from Hamilton & Inches               jewellers.

... that's quite a bit of kit to bring into the marital home without it being noticed. I mean, take my own home, albeit our salaries are less - I can't bring in a custard slice into my home without it being noticed though, in fairness my wife never complains about my occasional ‘sweet treat’ relapses.

But one thing's for sure - if I pulled up outside my home in a huge and brand new luxury campervan, I think she'd notice and when there was no change to our bank account, she would ask how I paid for it. Indeed, and having once owned a motorhome, I think there’s an above average chance she would have hit the roof on spending so much money without us having some kind of conversation about the matter.

So, am I accusing Ms Sturgeon of lying? No, but it does make me wonder about their relationship. Of course, it could be they each held separate bank accounts and kept their financial affairs separate and private. Hardly unknown, though somewhat unusual and of course, in this case it quite easy to accept she might ignore the Montblanc pens and stationery, the jewellery and the watches. However, the new Jaguar iPace worth £80,000 parked in your driveway, and the £125,000 Niesmann and Bischoff motorhome parked outside the home of her (then) 67 year old mother, Joan Sturgeon who, until 2017 also served  SNP councillor and provost (civic head of council) of North Ayrshire? Well that bit is a little harder to understand.

Personal political ramifications

Quite clearly the consequences of the Murrell case will impact heavily on Ms Sturgeon and bring into question her ability to exercise due diligence in her affairs. The annual spending budget of the Scottish parliament averages about £68bn and, of course is heavily monitored and audited, but if (and it remains unknown) Ms Sturgeon was part of a conspiracy to embezzle party funds, could she also have been party to stealing taxpayers money, It seems unlikely, but cannot be dismissed without investigation. In the coming months we can reasonably assume this will be investigated and if, as we would hope, she is innocent then the worst she could be accused of is naivete and gullibility – not qualities you would hope to see in senior politicians. On the other hand, if she is in any way guilty, the political and legal ramifications for her are immense.

Party political ramifications

If the Murrell case has shown us anything it is that the SNP financial system was wide open to abuse. At this time, the SNP is holding a deficit of about half a million and a rapidly declining membership. On the other hand it still hold ownership of the campervan, now only worth £41,000 and a £60,000 loan to Peter Murrell they are unlikely to ever see again. In short, the party is in something of a financial mess with no concrete plan to sort the problem out.

What is clear is that while the SNP secured sizable support in the last Scottish elections (57 seats) it seems unlikely to dam the holes and the only thing holding them up at the moment is the fact there is no viable alternate Scottish Independence party – if that changes before the next general election their future could be bleak.

When Alex Salmond was politically active and set up the Alba Party this may have happened soon er rather than later, but with his untimely death and the demise of his party it seems that for now they are safe. As for the Independence for Scotland Party, they continue to be a minor thorn in the SNP side though their leader Colette Walker remains an unknown and with less than 1% of the vote they pose no real threat.

However, if the likes of ex-SNP members such as Mhairi Black, Ash Regan or Neale Hanvey were to establish a new Scottish Independence Party the threat could be formidable

Wake up and smell the coffee - antisemitism is on the rise and our politicians are doing nothing

Since October 7th the world has seen a huge surge in antisemitism reminiscent  of Germany during the early stage of the Nazi regime. In response a number of political leaders across Europe and the United States have called for action to protect Jewish communities from race hate. However despite these efforts, where they exist, the statistics show that far from being a decline, there remains a significant problem.

Today's blog will explore some of these efforts and will argue the majority are fundamentally tokenistic and do little to reduce race crime.

There is nothing new about Situational Crime Prevention. It was originated by Ronald V. Clarke in the 1970s and became a broad policy approach led by the British Home Office Research Unit and exported in various forms abroad. The approach is underpinned by a core belief that offenders, particularly perpetrators of antisemitic crime act rationally, weighing risks (getting caught) against the satisfaction of upsetting or harming the victim.

                                               Ronald V. Clarke

With this theoretical underpinning of crime prevention against Jews as a base, let us dissect the actions taken by several countries and analyse its effectiveness, starting with the US and the efforts of President Trump 

United States

In the United States, President Donald Trump has enacted the following:

• Executive Order 14188 (2025): Shortly after his 2025 inauguration, President Trump issued a new executive order, “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism,” which vowed to vigorously use legal tools to prosecute and remove perpetrators of antisemitic harassment and violence.
• Federal Funding Pressure: The administration has indicated a willingness to withhold federal funds from universities, such as targetting funding for institutions like Columbia University over the way they handled campus protests.
• Targeting Campus Antisemitism: The administration launched investigations and lawsuits against institutions like Harvard, accusing them of allowing anti-Israel protesters to operate "with impunity" after the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.
• Use of IHRA Definition: The Department of Education under Trump has applied the IHRA definition of antisemitism to include anti-Zionism and certain criticisms of Israel as actionable discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
• Immigration and Visa Controls: Executive actions in 2025 directed federal agencies to review foreign student visas, allowing for the potential deportation of students who "advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats," which the administration tied to campus antisemitism.

In essence these look like promising moves, albeit a little overstating the significance of campus antisemitism rather than looking at Jew-hate in the wider community. However this may be being unfair because it is action. So how have these approaches panned out in practice?

Well, in fairness, it is early days, but initial indicators from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are not good. According to their research, antisemitic incidents in the US. reached record highs in 2024 and have continue to surge throughout the whole of 2025, driven by post-October 7, tensions. According to ADL data, 2024 saw 9,354 recorded incidents, with 2025 data showing a rising, more brazen trend, particularly in high-density areas, with a 21% rise in physical assaults reported.

Furthermore, by the end of 2025 over 30% of American Jews reported feeling unsafe in professional or social settings and 18% experienced direct physical or verbal threats. Meanwhile, on social media platforms 73% of American Jews experienced antisemitism online during 2025, specifically on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.

The evidence also shows little significant change in the number of hate crimes prosecuted and/ or convictions resulting in over 90% of American Jews feeling unsafe. Consequently and based on data available, early indications are that the Trump initiative isn't working or, if it is the change required to make America safe for Jews is happening too slowly.

United Kingdom

But before we start pillorying Trump for doing too little it would be worth comparing US efforts to address endemic antisemitism compared to other nations. Let us take the UK as an initial example. The UK has a long history of Jew hatred that goes back to Hugh of Lincoln in 1200 and the resulting Jewish expulsion in 1290. They did not return until  l 1656 during the Interregnum under Oliver Cromwell. Since then Jews were largely able to go about their daily business in peace, though antisemitic attacks continued.

It was only really after October 7th that attacks became more prevalent, though signs of antisemitic behaviour became more prevalent among the hard  Left when Corbyn became leader of Labour and the EHRC ruling against the party in 2020.

More recently, the Community Security Trust  "Antisemitic Incidents Report 2025", , showed 3,700 instances of anti-Jewish hate across the UK in 2025, the second highest annual total ever, and a 4% rise from the 3,556 antisemitic incidents in 2024, and second only to the 4,298 antisemitic incidents logged in 2023. CST recorded 1,662 antisemitic incidents in 2022, and 2,261 in 2021.

Broadly speaking UK government action against antisemitism appears to lie primarily with providing financial support to the Community Security Trust who have been allocated £28 million in 2025/26 through the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant. This includes additional emergency funding of £10 million. In addition, the government have prioritised interventions in the following areas: 

1. Security: Providing better support to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities. 
2. Education: Tackling antisemitism in schools, colleges, and universities and ensuring that we raise children and young people who embrace people from all backgrounds and faiths.
3. Institutional Action: Tackling antisemitism in key institutions, particularly the NHS, and the culture, sport, and voluntary sectors.

In short, most would agree the UK government have done next to nothing to eradicate antisemitism but Starmer continues to spout meaningless soundbites to appease the Jewish community. Take for example his recent meetings with Birmingham university students who itemised some of the problems associated with being a student on campus. He listened but offered no suggestions as to how a Labour government might help bring change.

France

Meanwhile, in France, Antisemitism has surged dramatically since October 2023, following the Hamas-Israel conflict, with reported incidents increasing by nearly 400% in 2023 to 1,676, compared to 436 in 2022. This includes a spike in physical assaults, school incidents, and acts of vandalism. The sharp rise continues a trend, with 2024 maintaining similarly high levels of anti-Jewish acts.

In response, the government elevated the domestic security alert to the highest possible level (Vigipirate), increasing security around Jewish schools and places of worship. 

President Emmanuel Macron vowed that perpetrators would be punished, prompting a strong crackdown on vandalism and violent attacks. In 2024, the government recorded 9,400 racist crimes and incidents, with the interior ministry emphasizing "total commitment" to tracking down attackers of Jewish individuals and properties.

Noticeably in the immediate period after October 7th over 1,000 antisemitic crimes were recorded but within that same period (post-October 7, 2023), 486 (less than half) were arrested for antisemitic offences in France.

Sadly, most of Europe reveals the same picture with Germany in particular showing a disturbing number of antisemitic crime and a poor conviction rate.

Political comment

The data clearly demonstrates that throughout much of the 'free world' not enough is being done to reduce or even eliminate antisemitism and without a clear strategy to deal with the problem it will continue to grow and prosper - our children will be frightened in their schools, our teenager boys will fear muggings, or girls will be unsafe on our streets, as will our elderly. Going to synagogue will no longer a joy but will become a weekly and dangerous period in our lives.

We cannot allow this to continue.

- and there is an alternative way. All it needs is for government to be willing to invest in our Jewish communities.

In particular:

Legislation - enact a law where antisemitism is viewed as a hate crime and, if convicted in a court of law a perpretrator would receive a custodial sentence of no less than 12-months for a non-violent crime and no less than 5 years for a violent one. Children under 16 would receive a detention and training order of no less than 12 months, or juvenile detention centre in the US,

• A visible and active police presence in local Jewish communities. Demonstatrors attempting to enter Jewish communities or near synagogues will be subject Dispersion orders or Anti-|Social behaviour orders. Police currently have this authority already but must use them far more to protect local residents.
• Holocaust education to become a core part of the curriculum for all schhol children over 13 years of age.
• The USSA, local college student unions, or NUS should be denied authority to require student unions from preventing college/ university Jewish societies from discussing Zionism or Israeli issues. Any attempt to do would be deemed a denial of free speech.
• Any Imam or Muslim from a foreign country who calls for Jihad or globalising the intifada will be subject to immediate repatriation. If the perpetrator is a UK or US national they will face terrorism charges for inciting violence.
• Legislation should be prepared to stipulate Anti-Zionism is racism and that expression of such by a public servant is subject to disciplinary charges,

Now I would be the first to agree there are significant issues with many of these points, but they offer an initial discussion base that could ultimately lead to feeling safer and a substantial decline in race crime

Whatever we do, one thing is transparent - we must do more!

Remembering Sarah

Today (5th April) will mark  nine years since Sarah Halimi,  a 65 year old retired doctor and a French Jew was beaten and murdered then thrown off her balcony simply because she was Jewish.

Sarah was brutally murdered by her neighbor Kobili Traoré. Traore broke into her Paris apartment, stabbed her to death for approximately 50 minutes, and then threw her body from a third-story window.

Traoré, 27, while torturing Halimi was heard calling her a “dirty Jew”, reciting verses from the Quran, and shouting Alahu Akbar. After the murder, he shouted, “I have killed the sheitan,” meaning the devil or demonic spirit in Arabic. Local police were downstairs waiting for backup while the torture was taking place.

In an unfathomable decision in mid-April, France’s highest judicial body, the Court of Cassation, ruled that Traoré will not face trial due to his consumption of marijuana the night of the murder. The courts cited an article of the French criminal code which states that a person is not liable for a crime if they suffered from a psychological or neurological disorder that impaired their actions at the time it was committed. In a 2017 case, a person also under the influence was sentenced to prison for throwing their dog out a window.

Sarah should have received justice. Her killer should have faced the full weight of the law but this didn't happen

We will never forget.

Have we become frogs in the water

In 1933, about 600,000 Jews lived in Germany, less than one percent of the total population. Most Jews in Germany were proud to be Germans, citizens of a country that had produced many great poets, writers, musicians, and artists. More than 100,000 German Jews had served in the German army during World War l and many were decorated for bravery.

Jews held important positions in government and taught in Germany's renowned universities. Of the 38 Nobel Prizes won by German writers and scientists between 1905 and 1936, 14 went to Jews. Marriage between Jews and non-Jews was becoming more common. Although German Jews continued to encounter some discrimination in their social lives and professional careers, many were confident of their future as Germans. They spoke the German language and regarded Germany as their home.

On 1st April 1933, the Nazis announced their boycott of Jewish businesses and professionals. Sturmabteilung, or SA, officers stood outside Jewish-owned businesses, intimidating them, and signs were posted that read, “The Jews are our misfortune” and “Don’t buy from Jews.”

The boycott was both a reprisal and an act of revenge against  Greuelpropaganda (atrocity stories) that German and foreign Jews, assisted by foreign journalists, were allegedly circulating in the international press to damage Nazi Germany's reputation. Germans to shame non-Jews who continued to patronise Jewish businesses. While the boycott lasted only a few days, it marked the beginning of the systematic targeting and discrimination of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The boycott was a countermeasure to an appeal from Jewish organisations in the United States to boycott German products. They wanted to protest against the mistreatment and discrimination of Jews in Germany. The boycott in Germany was not a great success. Many Germans did not care much, one way or the other, and the foreign press condemned the action. It was still an important moment in the development of anti-Jewish measures, though. 

For the first time, the Nazis showed clearly that they wanted to make life impossible for the Jews. Although the national boycott operation, organized by local Nazi party chiefs, lasted only one day and was ignored by many individual Germans who continued to shop in Jewish-owned stores, it marked the beginning of a nationwide campaign by the Nazi Party against the entire German Jewish population. 

A week later, the government passed a law restricting employment in the civil service to "Aryans." Jewish government workers, including teachers in public schools and universities, were fired. 

The modern day bpycott and the 'New' Neo-Nazism

A little over 90 years later Jewish companies and companies willing to sell Israeli products or have premises in Israel again face a boycott. Nothing has changed. Violent SS and SA troopers in their black or brown uniforms have been replaced by thuggish pro-Palestinian keffiyeh wearing neo Nazi-like bigots, who damage property, commit vandalism or, more dangerously and shamelessly threaten Jews or pro-Israel supporters.

Don't believe me? How about a pro-Palestinian rally held in the USA on 14th December, 2023 in front of Townhouse, an upscale restaurant and bar in downtown Detroit, led its owner to contact law enforcement and increase security. In social media posts, people reported hearing  one speaker say: "How many kids did you kill today?.There are dozens, if not hundreds more examples I could have offered.

Meanwhile in the UK and Europe it is no better - take the protest against Miznon Notting Hill restaurant in London, the gang attack on HaMakom cafe in Leipzig on Wednesday, the unionization against New York City Bread's Bakery participation in Israeli events, and the closure of the Tantura restaurant in Lisbon. All caused by violent extremists, these new neo-"Nazis". eager to perpetuate their inheritance of threat fand violence against Jews.

The illegitimacy of the BDS Movement

Of course, the BDS movement is in very large part at the heart at this antisemitic campaign and justify their campaign by comparing their "cause" to the fight to overthrow South African apartheid, but even a cursory glance shows overwhelmingly an absence of integrity in the BDS Movement  Take a few of the following examples:

Elbit Systems (Bristol, UK): The most prominent target is Elbit's facility near Bristol. In August 2024, protesters used a van as a battering ram to enter the site, causing approximately £1 million ($1.4 million) in damage, including smashing equipment and spraying red paint.

Other Defence Targets: Activists have targeted Thalesn Glasgow and Instro Precision in Kent. Blockades have also been organized at companies like Eaton Mission Systems in Dorset

Meanwhile in the USA:

Restaurants and Retail: The Philadelphia-based falafel shop Goldie was targeted by protestors over its owner's donations to an Israeli ambulance service. Similarly, Philadelphia restaurant Laser Wolf faced protests, and other Middle Eastern food businesses, such as New York City’s Ayat reported receiving abusive calls and negative reviews.

Defence Contractors: Companies supplying military equipment to Israel, such as Lockheed Martin (which produces F-35I fighter jets), have faced protests from groups demanding a halt to arms sales.

Tech and Financial Firms: Major U.S. tech firms including Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Meta have been accused by activists of supporting Israeli government activities through cloud computing and AI technology. Activists have also targeted financial institutions like Citibank or alleged financial links to Israeli security operations.

Israeli-Linked Manufacturers: Agilite an Israeli tactical gear manufacturer with U.S. retail locations, was flagged for advertising its products' use by the Israeli military in Gaza.

Political Comment

In short, the evidence is clear - we are like frogs in the water (drop a frog in hot water and it will  jump out, but put it in cold water slowly and heat it up then the frog will stay until it perishes) and nobody is helping us. In the US the view appears to be that Europe has fallen but we (ie America) are safe.. Are you? Look at the data and you will see your situation is as bad - businesses boycotted or vandalised, visible Jewish people attacked  and synagogues vulnerable to arson attacks or worse, shootings. You are no different,

Meanwhile in the UK and most of Europe things are far from good and there isn't a single political leader standing in our defence - look at Starmer, Macron or Pedro Sanchez. Like Europe of 1933 they are only concerned for themselves. Remember, Jews didn't start facing persecution when the Final Solution was enacted, it happened years before - and barely a soul said anything - much like today.

So what should we do? For many aliyah is a perfect solution, but after some thought it is not an option I will choose and it's not because of a lack of love for Israel. It is because until my last breath I intend to stay and fight. I will not be silent about what is happening, I will shout from the tallest rooftop and expose the dishonesty amongst our enemies; it is because I will face the pro-Pallies head on and attack their vile antisemitic and neo-Nazi rhetoric and show it for what it is; I will face and expose their shameful deceit in the passionate belief that truth and honesty will eventually prevail - and if I fail, I will be able to face those who might judge me and say at least I tried.

Chag Pesach Sameach.

Israel passes controversial death penalty law

 On Tuesday night, the Israeli Knesset enacted legislation requiring the death penalty for all West Bank Palestinians convicted of carrying out deadly terror attacks. Of course, the broader debate over the legitimacy of capital punishment is an emotive one and will be discussed later. The US has had a long term affinity for capital and the law allows 27 states to apply it, while the UK abolished it in 1960.

The new Israeli law has triggered predictable outrage abroad and deep debate at home. But beyond the headlines, the story is not just about capital punishment. It is about how terrorism, justice, and narrative framing collide and how those collisions are interpreted very differently depending on the lens. While some of the criticism is a legitimate part of the debate, there has also been a predictable international media reaction: alarmist headlines, sweeping generalizations, and, in some cases, outright misinformation.

But a closer reading of the legislation and of the reporting itself reveals a far narrower, more complex reality than many news  outlets would have readers believe.

Not “Palestinians” — Terrorists Convicted of Murder

A striking number of headlines refer broadly to “Palestinians,” implying that the law applies collectively to an entire population, but this is not the case..

A similar story has been seen in other newspapers.

The UK Telegraph newspaper headline completely ignores the fact the law focuses exclusively on terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians, not the average Palestinian.

The new law targets a specific category of perpetrators: terrorists who intentionally kill a person as part of an act of terrorism. It is not applicable to all Palestinians, nor even to all individuals involved in terrorism. Those whose actions do not result in fatalities are not subject to the death penalty under this law.

Yet by stripping away that crucial distinction, media coverage transforms a narrowly defined legal measure into what appears to be a sweeping policy of collective punishment. Nothing new here, as most newspaper in both the US and UK love the opportunity to berate Israel,

That framing is misleading.

The law is NOT retroactive — and not about “thousands of prisoners”

Another claim circulating is that the law could be used against the thousands of Palestinians currently held in Israeli prisons.

Again, that is not the case. This law will only affect terrorists convicted of intentionally killing innocent people, not thousands of inmates.

Furthermore, the law cannot be applied retroactively. It applies only to future convictions meeting a specific criteria. Existing prisoners — regardless of their crimes for which they were convicted — are not affected.

By omitting this basic legal principle, some reporting inevitably has left audiences with the false impression that Israel is preparing to execute large numbers of current detainees but this is not the case

A Country Deeply Divided on the Issue

Another element missing from much of the coverage is the significant domestic debate prevalent Israel itself. Indeed, there is no national consensus behind the law.

Opposition figures, legal experts, and segments of the public have, and are continuing to raise major concerns — from moral objections to questions about deterrence and potential consequences. Even within Israel’s political and security establishment, the issue has long been contentious.

In other words, this is not the action of a monolithic state imposing an uncontested policy despite i9mplications raised by external media.. It is the product of a democratic system grappling openly and contentiously with a deeply sensitive issue.

Furthermore, this law has been passed against the backdrop of the Hamas October 7 massacre. Beyond emotive calls to deal with future terrorist threats or to apply some form of deterrence, there is a very practical reality that Israel has faced. Let us never forget, Israeli hostages were kidnapped and held in Gaza to be exchanged for thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

It is hard to forget that in a previous prisoner exchange, The now eradicated Hamas leader and mastermind of October 7, Yahya Sinwar was among those released  and for some Israelis, the death penalty may reduce the risk of such a murderer being freed in future.

A Law That Will Face Legal Scrutiny

So transparently the legal debate is far from over and Israel’s legal system, anchored by an independent judiciary, is expected to examine the law in detail. Any attempt to implement it will likely face rigorous judicial review.

Yet this reality — that the law will be tested, challenged, and potentially constrained through legal mechanisms is largely absent from coverage that prefers a more simplistic and largely anti:Israel narrative.

In addition, while death by hanging may be the default punishment for West Bank residents convicted of deadly terrorist acts by military courts, judges can opt for life imprisonment under vaguely defined “special circumstances.” Also, the sentence would still require a simple majority of judges, thus avoiding a unilateral decision on a matter of such gravity.

It is worth noting that the law was watered down to ensure it would not go any further than any similar laws enacted under U.S. legislation.

The Bottom Line

The death penalty law raises serious questions. Israelis themselves are debating them.

But the portrayal of the law as a sweeping, discriminatory measure targeting Palestinians as a whole — or as a tool poised to be applied to thousands of existing prisoners — does not withstand scrutiny.

It is a narrower, prospective measure aimed at a specific category of deadly terrorism.

And once again, the gap between what the law says and how it is reported tells its own story..

Political Comment

The new legislation raises a number of political, legal, religious and ethical issues. Now I am very far from as religious or Talmudic scholar so, if I may I will leave that issue to others more learned than me.

But on the political arena I think Israel is making a grave mistake. Internationally the country is not at its strongest and, thanks to a major media and social media campaign the "Palestinian" movement to sway opinion against the country, It is therefore inevitable that when a Palestinian terrorist kills an Israeli and is sentenced to death they could well be perceived as martyrs and undoubtedly anti-Zionists will create a mass campaign against the country.

Secondly, the country is an active war against Iran - a war that could see the US leaving without completing all of the strategic goals required. If that happens Israel will need to be united in what could become a prolonged war with Iran.

Third, it is inconceivable that the PA will recruit terrorists willing to kill Jews and become martyrs to "the cause" and promote their illegitimate campaign. While Iranian money will not be available, there are enough funds available to mount a prolonged campaign.

At an ethical issue there are further problems. The only capital death on Israeli soil was Adolf Eichmann and the nation has a proud history of avoiding capital sentencing despite countless sentencing. If this is to change courts will have to establish unquestionable guilt and internationally there are countless examples of how, despite stringent safeguards mistakes have been made.

So, in short I fear this new law will be a terrible mistake for a country that prides itself for being the only democracy in the Middle East and while the nation is very from an apartheid state, having legislation that punishes according to race leaves Israel vulnerable to accusations of having different rules for Palestinians than Jews. Creating laws based on vengeance and hatred are not the solution - we win when we show even our enemies that we will not succumb to bitterness and revenge. Payback and reprisal will not make Israelis safer.