Summary
The article argues that Israel’s judicial system is failing to adequately deter espionage and treason at a time of heightened national security threats, particularly from Iran. According to the author, courts routinely treat severe espionage offenses as personal errors rather than existential threats, handing down lenient sentences wrapped in legal language about proportionality and rehabilitation.
This judicial softness, the article contends, sends a dangerous message: betrayal is not a moral or legal red line, but a manageable risk. To restore deterrence and protect public safety, the author calls for a fundamental shift—specifically, the introduction of mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious espionage offenses.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial leniency in espionage cases undermines deterrence, weakens national security, and risks emboldening future spies.
- The courts are portrayed as disconnected from Israel’s security reality, treating espionage as a theoretical crime rather than an active and ongoing threat.
- Structural legal reform, including mandatory minimum sentences for serious espionage offenses, is presented as necessary to restore deterrence, clarity, and public trust.
Originally published in Israel Hayom, February 8, 2026.
Israel is living in a reality where its enemies invest hundreds of millions of dollars in espionage, subversion, and sabotage. So far, roughly thirty-four Iranian traitors and spies have been uncovered, and this is likely only the beginning. Yet the Israeli judicial system appears to inhabit a parallel reality, one in which Iran is an abstract concept, espionage is reduced to a “misjudgment,” and public security is pushed into a marginal clause at the edge of a verdict.
Today, the judiciary behaves like a lifeguard on a stormy beach handing out floaties to children. Instead of standing as a firm barrier against those who play with the fire of espionage and betrayal, judges roll out a soft red carpet, wrapped in the language of “proportionality” and “personal circumstances.”
The most dangerous espionage offenses, including marking targets for Iranian missiles, transferring funds to terror operatives, and tearing at the fabric of Israeli society, are treated like minor zoning violations, accompanied by lengthy moral reflections. While the region burns, threats intensify, and espionage networks operate openly, the courts behave as though they are seated in a refined literary lecture hall, carefully weighing “sin and punishment.”
Rather than serving as a protective shield, the courts often function as laboratories of legal mercy. Judgments are filled with references to proportionality, rehabilitation, and personal background, and in the end, those who placed millions of lives at risk walk away with minimal punishment and negligible deterrence. This is not merely a legal failure; it is a national security failure, delicately wrapped in silk.
While Iran recruits collaborators and operates clandestine networks within Israeli society, judges wield a plastic hammer coated in philosophical citations. Instead of deterrence, there are moral lectures. Instead of protecting the public, there are symposiums on personal circumstances.
Judicial Examples and Critique
The gap is evident in district court rulings. Consider, for example, a case before Judge Hannah Miriam Lump involving a young man convicted of serious espionage. The prosecution requested a seven-year prison sentence, a demand already criticized as insufficient. The judge imposed a sentence of three years, likely to be reduced to roughly two years in practice. If this is meant to function as deterrence, even a parking ticket is an existential threat.
Observers of Judge Lump’s record point to a troubling pattern: inexplicable delays in extradition, community service for severe violent offenses, and sentences that appear designed to protect the offender’s emotional well-being more than citizens’ lives. Unfortunately, this judge is not an anomaly. She reflects a judicial system that behaves as though it is managing a social services framework rather than responding to an active national security threat.
The Message Being Sent
What message does this send? The answer is simple and unmistakable. Treason is not a red line. It is a calculated risk. Anyone prepared to gamble with our lives understands that the system will respond with polite indignation, issue a lengthy reprimand, and ultimately release them with barely a scratch. This is not deterrence. It is an open invitation to the next spy.
Defendants see before them a system that indulges in sanctimonious language yet struggles to grasp a basic truth: deterrence is not a dirty word. It is our first line of defense. When espionage becomes a calculated and profitable risk, we are effectively inviting the next infiltrator ourselves.
This disconnect is more dangerous than any missile. It erodes public trust, weakens deterrence, and empowers our enemies. When traitors learn that the legal risk is minimal, they dare more. When judges hesitate to impose real consequences, the price is paid by all of us.
What Must Change
The time has come for a clear and decisive shift: a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment for serious espionage offenses. A state that does not punish betrayal severely encourages it.
This is not a call for revenge. It is a call for basic logic. Deterrence saves lives. A clear legislative reform is required to establish a mandatory minimum of twenty years in prison for serious espionage. This is a necessary red line, not a political slogan. If action is delayed, judicial indifference may spread unchecked and consume what matters most: the security of Israel’s citizens.
A strong judicial system is not measured by its leniency toward offenders, but by its resolve to protect the public. It is time for the judiciary to remember that.
