Israeli Supreme Court asks Abou Shehadeh to withdraw

The Israeli Supreme Court requested Sami Abou Shehadeh, leader of the Balad party, to withdraw from the legislative elections scheduled for October 27, 2026, rather than issuing a definitive ruling on his case. This decision raises questions about the court's role in electoral matters and the interpretation of legal standards for candidate exclusion.

Electoral Commission excludes Arab parties

On September 23, at the request of the Otzma Yehudit party, led by Itamar Ben Gvir, the minister of national security, the Central Electoral Commission voted to exclude the United Arab List and the Unified List from the election. It also disqualified the candidacy of communist MP Ofer Cassif and Abou Shehadeh, who are part of the Unified List.

Supreme Court validates some candidates

The court allowed the participation of the two majority Arab parties and validated the candidacy of Ofer Cassif but did not rule on Abou Shehadeh's candidacy, instead strongly encouraging him to withdraw. Abou Shehadeh announced his withdrawal the next day, without the court rendering a definitive and motivated judgment on the substance of his case.

Composition of the Electoral Commission

The Central Electoral Commission, composed of representatives of the Knesset parties and non-politically affiliated administrative officials, is currently largely dominated by the right and the far right. The commission is chaired by a judge of the Supreme Court, Noam Sohlberg, vice-president of the Court. The affected candidate can contest the decision before the same jurisdiction.

Hearing includes diverse judges

The hearing of Abou Shehadeh took place on October 1, 2026, before a panel of nine judges, including those with liberal sensitivities, a judge residing in a settlement near Ramallah, a magistrate who previously belonged to the right-wing colonization movement Goush Emounim, and a Palestinian judge from Israel. Ben Gvir, in his lawyer's robe, and Tally Gotliv, second-in-command of Otzma Yehudit, also a lawyer, argued in favor of the disqualification of the Palestinian Israeli candidate.

Abou Shehadeh's controversial article

At the heart of the procedure was an article by Abou Shehadeh, published on the Arabophone site Arab48 on October 8, 2023, in which he described the previous day's attacks as a "strategic major event" on military and security grounds. He also denounces a hierarchy of human lives and believes that the pressures on Palestinians, the blockade of Gaza imposed for nearly two decades, national repression, apartheid, the absence of political prospects, and extreme poverty have led to an explosion.

Legal basis for exclusion

The exclusion decision is based on Article 7A of the Basic Law relating to the Knesset, which allows the exclusion of a candidate or an electoral list in three cases: rejection of the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, incitement to racism, or support for armed struggle carried out by an enemy state or a terrorist organization against Israel.

Judicial precedents on exclusion

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has developed an increasingly restrictive jurisprudence regarding electoral exclusion. In the 1980s, in the case "Neiman v. President of the Electoral Commission," the Supreme Court established a fundamental principle: the reason invoked to exclude a candidate had to occupy a central place in his political activity or that of the list to which he belonged.

Reaffirming exclusion criteria

In 2003, the Court was again requested in the case of Azmi Bishara, founder of the Balad party. The Central Electoral Commission accused him, among other things, of supporting armed struggle against Israel and of denying the Jewish nature of the state by defending the idea of "a state for all its citizens." The Court considered that these elements were not sufficient to justify his exclusion.

Article 7A's intent

Article 7A does not intend to sanction any controversial statement or any opinion that deviates from the dominant political consensus. Its application requires sufficiently solid evidence to justify a measure as serious as electoral exclusion, and the behavior in question must occupy a central and dominant place in the political activity of the candidate or his list.

Re-examining exclusion criteria

The Court re-examined these principles in 2020 in the case of Hiba Yazbek, following publications dating from 2015. The MP, a member of Balad, had called Samir Kountar a "martyr" on Facebook and mentioned Dalal Al-Moughrabi on the occasion of International Women's Day. The Electoral Commission interpreted these publications as an expression of support for armed struggle.

Legal and political considerations

The question was not whether the October 8, 2023 text could be considered shocking, but whether it constituted sufficiently clear and convincing evidence of support for armed struggle that had become central and dominant in the political project of its author. However, long before the exclusion was considered by the Electoral Commission, Abou Shehadeh had repeatedly expressed his opposition to attacks on civilians.

Abou Shehadeh's defense

During the hearing, Abou Shehadeh provided explanations regarding the meaning of his text. He also said he regretted having published it the day after the attack, acknowledging that the choice of date was inopportune. He finally reaffirmed his opposition to any attacks on civilians and any form of violence against them, regardless of the motives.

Legal dilemma for the Court

Can a 610-word text be sufficient to demonstrate that support for armed struggle constitutes a central and dominant objective of a political project developed over several decades? The Court would have had to explain, in a public and motivated decision, how a single article could suffice despite precedents requiring clear and convincing evidence and inviting an appreciation of the candidate's entire political behavior.

Institutional and political implications

The case occurs on the eve of the legislative elections on October 27, the first since the start of the genocide in Gaza. The institutional and political reasons that may explain the Court's decision not to make a ruling and to encourage Abou Shehadeh to withdraw his candidacy remain open to interpretation. Three considerations can shed light on this.