Background
Israel’s Central Elections Committee barred Knesset member Dr. Ofer Cassif and Sami Abu Shehadeh from standing in the election for the 26th Knesset on the Joint List slate. The Committee also disqualified the Joint List and Ra’am–United Arab List from participating. The decisions invoked Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset, which permits disqualification for denying Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or supporting armed struggle by an enemy state or terrorist organization against Israel.
The candidate rulings reached the Supreme Court for the statutorily required approval, while the two electoral lists appealed their disqualifications. After oral argument, Abu Shehadeh withdrew his candidacy; the Court therefore dismissed his approval proceeding as moot. Because election law required a decision no later than 23 days before the election, the Court issued a condensed statement of reasons, with fuller reasons to follow separately.
The Court’s Holding
By a 7–2 majority, the Court declined to approve Cassif’s disqualification and held that he could stand for election. All nine justices repudiated his objectionable statements and actions, but the majority concluded that the record did not satisfy the stringent legal tests developed under Section 7A, including the required evidentiary “critical mass.” Justices David Mintz and Alex Stein dissented, concluding that Cassif’s conduct and statements, considered together with his past remarks, established direct or indirect support for armed struggle against Israel.
The Court unanimously granted the Joint List’s appeal, vacated the Committee’s decision, and allowed the slate to participate in the election. The evidence submitted to the Committee did not meet the judicial standards for disqualifying a candidate list on grounds of denying Israel’s Jewish and democratic character or supporting armed struggle.
The Court likewise unanimously granted Ra’am’s appeal, vacated its disqualification, and permitted it to participate. The submitted materials were insufficient under the governing standards to establish any of the asserted grounds: denying Israel’s Jewish and democratic character, inciting racism, or supporting armed struggle.
Key Takeaways
- Section 7A disqualification is an extreme remedy governed by narrow, demanding standards because of the constitutional importance of the rights to vote and to stand for election.
- Offensive or repugnant speech does not by itself justify exclusion; the evidence must establish the statutory ground with the required “critical mass.”
- The Court unanimously reinstated the Joint List and Ra’am, reinstated Cassif by a 7–2 vote, and dismissed the Abu Shehadeh proceeding after he withdrew.
Why It Matters
The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court’s restrictive approach to excluding candidates and electoral lists from Israeli elections. Even where judges strongly condemn political expression, disqualification requires evidence satisfying the exacting statutory and precedential threshold.
It also illustrates the Court’s distinct procedural roles: a Central Elections Committee decision disqualifying an individual candidate requires Supreme Court approval, whereas a disqualified list must appeal the Committee’s decision.