As Israel goes to elections tomorrow, the recent rampage of brutal murders by Palestinians has convinced many Israelis to vote hardline right-wing parties that promise to take an uncompromising stand against terror.

I honestly cannot understand why Palestinians are ramping up their attacks in the lead-up to elections knowing full well that their violence pushes Israel to vote for extreme right parties whose commitment to fighting terror and defending Israel at all costs will make life much more difficult for them.

A growing majority of Israelis are convinced that these evil intentions will not change anytime soon, in spite of the multitudes of Palestinian casualties caused by their own people. Israelis are fed up with left-wing attempts to make peace, and a right-wing government including more extreme right-wing elements is predicted to win the elections.

History has convinced our people that there is an ingrained conviction nurtured among the Palestinians that wicked violence is justified and the only way for them to “get rid of Israel,” which is surely a losing battle. Regardless of the pain and suffering they bring upon their own people, and the Jews, their eternal neighbors, they are blinded by hatred and revenge.

Cries for the death penalty against terrorists are growing louder in Israel, though most are shot and killed on the spot, which one would think would also be a deterrent.

Right and left deterrence against the wicked is limited

Unlike most modern democracies that reject the death penalty, in Israel there are two specific crimes that are punishable by death: crimes against the Jewish people and humanity (the law for the punishment of Nazis and their accomplices), and murder in the context of a terrorist act (under the emergency regulations act).

According to Israeli law, the death penalty requires a unanimous vote by the Supreme Court which, for the most part, is far more liberal left than conservative right. However, the caution against rashly implementing the death penalty in Israel is not just a political position, but is based on ancient Jewish tradition in which, despite the existence of capital punishment, it is almost never invoked. As it is written:

The Sanhedrin that kills one person every seven years is considered damaging.

In other words, Jewish law requires moderation in dealing with murder cases.

In scripture, God provided Israel with a detailed toolbox for determining the crime and punishment in murder cases (see for example Numbers 35). As the Children of Israel were about to enter the land, knowing that setting up a nation would require dealing with the complexities of human sin, Cities of Refuge were established to which a murderer could flee until the case was properly judged.

A major breakthrough in ancient civilization law came with the biblical allowance for Israel to discuss a person’s intent in crime, not only the results of his or her action. The Bible makes a distinction between malicious and accidental murder. The concept is found first in Leviticus 4, where the person who acted without intent is given an opportunity to pay for the murder, but not with his life. Today we distinguish between manslaughter, murder, wrongdoing and malice, scenarios which the Bible had recognized a very long time ago.

The basis of the Bible’s approach to these laws is to protect the sanctity of life while also taking into consideration the weaknesses and complexities of humanity. Yet the biblical guidelines would not be considered “humane” by modern politically correct standards. In the Book of Numbers chapter 35 we have the clearest standards for judging murder. The chapter concludes with a strong warning not to go easy on the “wicked criminal.” There is a severe prohibition against any kind of plea deal, payment or political considerations to ease the punishment of a convicted murderer. The murderer “which is wicked must be put to death.” However, it is also commanded that the murderer will be executed, not killed for revenge.

All of these scriptural regulations were given to protect the “sanctity of the land,” that is the bloodshed of innocents, prevent further carnage, and maintain personal security for the public.

What happens to a society whose leaders renounce their responsibility to protect the sanctity of life when there is “wickedness in the land”? It allows much of the chaos, mayhem and anger we see on the streets of Israel, and around the world.

I am voting for Bibi.