The Supreme Court on Friday published its rulings in four major disqualification proceedings ahead of the elections for the 26th Knesset, allowing MK Ofer Cassif (Hadash), the Joint List, and the United Arab List (Ra'am) to participate in the elections. Proceedings concerning Sami Abu Shehadeh were dismissed following his decision to withdraw his candidacy.
The decisions were issued by a nine-justice panel headed by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, following a hearing held on Thursday. Due to the timetable established by law ahead of the elections, the court released a summary of its reasoning, stating that the full explanations would be published separately.
In Abu Shehadeh's case, the ruling explicitly revealed the direction the justices had been leaning before he withdrew. According to the court, following the hearing, all nine justices agreed that Abu Shehadeh's statements were "painful, outrageous, and nauseating."
Although the justices held differing positions, the court noted that the emerging outcome was to uphold the Central Elections Committee's decision to disqualify him.
However, Abu Shehadeh announced on Friday morning that he had decided to withdraw his candidacy on behalf of the Joint List. Consequently, the court ruled that there was no longer a need to issue a judgment in the proceedings concerning his disqualification, and the case was dismissed.
A different decision was reached regarding MK Ofer Cassif. The Central Elections Committee had disqualified him on two grounds: denying the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and supporting an armed struggle against Israel by an enemy state or terrorist organization.
In a seven-to-two decision, the Supreme Court declined to uphold Cassif's disqualification, allowing him to run in the elections.
President Amit and Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, Yael Wilner, Ofer Grosskopf, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, Khaled Kabub, and Yechiel Kasher formed the majority. Justices David Mintz and Alex Stein dissented.
The ruling emphasized that all nine justices disapproved of Cassif's statements and actions, which the court described as "outrageous" and "repugnant."
Nevertheless, the majority determined that his conduct did not meet the stringent threshold established in previous rulings for disqualifying a candidate, including the requirement for a sufficient "critical mass" of evidence.
Mintz and Stein, however, concluded that Cassif's statements and activities directly and indirectly established grounds for disqualification based on support for armed struggle against the State of Israel. They also considered his previous statements to reinforce that conclusion.
The Supreme Court also overturned the Central Elections Committee's decision to disqualify the Joint List. In that case, all nine justices unanimously accepted the appeal and permitted the party to participate in the elections for the 26th Knesset.
The court determined that the evidence submitted to the Central Elections Committee did not satisfy the standards established in case law for disqualifying an electoral list.
The court reached the same conclusion regarding Ra'am, which the Central Elections Committee had disqualified on three grounds: denying Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, incitement to racism, and supporting armed struggle against Israel by an enemy state or terrorist organization.
The Supreme Court unanimously accepted Ra'am's appeal, overturned the committee's decision, and ruled that the party could participate in the elections. Here, too, the justices determined that the evidence presented to the committee failed to meet the legal threshold required for disqualification.
In their summary of the rulings, the justices reiterated that candidates or electoral lists may be disqualified for denying Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or supporting armed struggle against Israel by an enemy state or terrorist organization.
However, the court stressed that the rights to vote and to be elected are constitutional rights of particularly high standing. Disqualification, it emphasized, is an "extremely drastic measure," and the legal standards governing its application must therefore be interpreted narrowly.