Israel’s parliament has passed a law imposing the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of fatal attacks, a measure sharply criticised as discriminatory by European nations and rights groups.

The legislation makes the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed acts of terrorism by a military court.

According to the bill, those sentenced to death will be held in a separate facility with no visits except for from authorised personnel, with legal consultations conducted only by video link. Executions will be carried out within 90 days of sentencing.

Israel has rarely used the death penalty, applying it only in exceptional cases. The Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed, in 1962.

The national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of the bill’s strongest backers, has repeatedly worn a noose-shaped lapel pin, symbolising executions under the proposal. He described hanging as “one of the options” alongside the electric chair or “euthanasia”, claiming some doctors had offered to assist.

A security committee made some amendments to the bill, which last week passed its first vote. Israel’s public broadcaster KAN reported that executions would be carried out by hanging.

The measure will allow courts to impose the death penalty without a request from prosecutors and without requiring unanimity, instead permitting a simple majority decision. Military courts in the occupied West Bank will also be empowered to hand down death sentences, with the defence minister able to submit an opinion.

For Palestinians under occupation, the bill closes off avenues for appeal or clemency, while prisoners tried inside Israel could see their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.

The legislation, initiated by the far-right Otzma Yehudit party led by Ben-Gvir, has drawn sharp criticism from opponents who warn it would mark a significant escalation in Israel’s penal policy.

Military officials and ministries have said the bill could breach international law and expose Israeli personnel to arrest abroad.

Once enacted, the law formally enters into force but it can still be reviewed – and potentially struck down – by Israel’s supreme court.

Directly before voting began, Ben-Gvir made a bellowing speech from the podium, describing the law as long overdue and a sign of strength and national pride.

“From today, every terrorist will know, and the whole world will know, that whoever takes a life, the state of Israel will take their life,” he said.

When the measure passed, the chamber erupted into cheers and Ben-Gvir brandished a bottle in celebration. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who had come to the chamber to vote yes in person, sat motionless.

After the vote, a leading Israeli human rights group announced it had filed a petition with the country’s supreme court. “The Association for Civil Rights in Israel filed a petition today to the high court of justice, demanding the annulment of the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law, enacted by the Knesset,” it said.

The Palestinian Authority called the passing of the bill a “dangerous escalation”. In a post on X, the Ramallah-based Palestinian foreign ministry said that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land”, adding: “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimise extrajudicial killing under legislative cover.”

Last month UN experts called on Israel to withdraw the bill, warning it would violate the right to life and discriminate against Palestinians in the occupied territories. They said the measure removed judicial discretion, preventing courts from weighing individual circumstances or imposing proportionate sentences. They said hanging constituted torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law.

The EU’s diplomatic service also condemned the proposal, saying capital punishment breached the right to life and risked violating the absolute prohibition on torture.

In February, Amnesty International urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, which it said “would allow Israeli courts to expand their use of death sentences with discriminatory application against Palestinians”.

On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the legislation, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles”.

Public figures such as Doreen Lawrence and Elton John were “induced” to sue the Daily Mail’s publisher on the basis of a private investigator’s now disowned claims of illegal activity, the high court has heard.

Seven people including Prince Harry have accused Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) of using unlawful information gathering to obtain stories. John’s partner, David Furnish, and the actor Liz Hurley are also among the group. ANL denies all the claims.

The most serious allegations came from Gavin Burrows, a private investigator who has since said a witness statement containing claims of phone hacking, tapping and bugging was forged.

In written closing submissions in the 10-week trial, ANL’s legal team said the Burrows statement – and other disputed claims made by him – were used to recruit prominent figures to the case.

“It seems that it took time to build the group, and that at least some of the claimants were induced to join and maintain the proceedings on being persuaded … that the grave allegations attributed to Mr Burrows were truthful,” said Antony White, the lead barrister for the publisher.

He said that given Burrows now denied doing anything illegal for ANL, “the most serious of the claimants’ allegations, and the basis upon which Ms Hurley, Sir Elton John and Mr Furnish, the Duke of Sussex and Baroness Lawrence had been persuaded by the claimants’ legal representatives and research team to join the group claim, have effectively fallen away.”

White said it was a “particular tragedy” that Lawrence, 73, had been persuaded to join the case after the Daily Mail’s long campaign for justice for her son Stephen, who was murdered in 1993 in a racist attack.

White said Lawrence had been regarded as a “trophy claimant so prized by the claimants’ lawyers and research team”. He said she had been persuaded to join the case “on the basis of ‘evidence’ that had no substance and ultimately was not even deployed”.

Burrows previously told the court that Lawrence had been “conned” by researchers now working for the claimants’ legal team.

David Sherborne, the lead barrister for the claimants, has said Burrows only made his forgery claims after a huge falling out with Graham Johnson, a researcher for the claimants’ legal team.

In court, Sherborne said Burrows’ subsequent claims that his admissions and testimony were forged were “hopeless” and “frankly risible”.

Earlier in the case, Sherborne said Burrows was just “the original whistleblower” and there was “plenty of hard evidence of Associated using numerous other private investigators to carry out unlawful information gathering”.

White said claims against ANL of unlawful information gathering had been long in the planning by the campaign group Hacked Off. He said it was part of the group’s “political campaign” to show that the publisher had misled the Leveson inquiry into the practices of the press.

At the inquiry, ANL executives said there had been no hacking and that the use of private investigators had stopped in 2007.

White said researchers targeted “national treasures” who might gain public sympathy. He said “headline-grabbing allegations” of tapping, bugging and hacking made at the start of the legal action “generated, as must have been intended, enormous publicity”.

“This robust and comprehensive defence mounted by Associated has resulted in the most serious of the claimants’ allegations being struck out, or falling away, or being abandoned, or significantly reduced, before or during the trial,” he said.

He said there were no documents to support the disputed Burrows confessions.

White said that either ANL had not used private investigators in relation to the articles cited in the case, or that they had been used legally to obtain telephone numbers and addresses. He said a parade of current and former Mail journalists had recounted “a pattern of legitimate sourcing” for stories.

The claimants’ legal team have also focused on claims of alleged “blagging”, including of detailed medical information about the actor Sadie Frost and flight information about one of Prince Harry’s former girlfriends.

The case continues.