Election panel to weigh whether Balad leader Abu Shehadeh crossed legal line for Knesset run

The Central Elections Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday on whether statements and publications attributed to Balad leader Sami Abu Shehadeh meet the unusually high legal threshold for barring a candidate from the Knesset, principally on the grounds that he supported armed struggle against Israel by a terrorist organization.

The vote is part of two days of hearings over who may compete in the October 27 election. The committee will first consider a request to disqualify MK Ofer Cassif, followed by the case against Abu Shehadeh and challenges targeting Ra’am, the Joint List and Balad. Requests against Otzma Yehudit, the Religious Zionist Party-Zehut list and the Democrats are scheduled for Thursday.

The proceedings ask a question broader than whether the statements and conduct cited against the candidates are offensive or extreme. Under Basic Law: The Knesset, a candidate or list may be barred for rejecting Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or supporting armed struggle against Israel by an enemy state or terrorist organization.

The Supreme Court has interpreted those grounds narrowly because disqualification also deprives voters of the ability to choose that candidate. The prohibited position must be central to the candidate’s political activity and supported by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Courts have generally required a sustained pattern, rather than an isolated statement.

Otzma Yehudit’s request against Abu Shehadeh, the Balad chairman and third candidate on the Joint List, cites a broader record of statements and publications. Its central evidence, and the main focus of the attorney-general’s position, is an Arabic-language article he published on October 8, 2023.

Abu Shehadeh called October 7 an ‘important historic event’

In the article, Abu Shehadeh described the Hamas attack as an “important historic event” in military, political and strategic terms. He wrote that if “small and besieged Gaza” had succeeded in surprising Israel on that scale, others could do so more effectively and easily.

The applicants argue that the article praised the attack and encouraged others to learn from it. They also cited other statements, including a publication referring to Palestinians killed by the IDF as “righteous martyrs,” as well as Abu Shehadeh’s positions concerning Israel’s definition as a Jewish state.

Abu Shehadeh says the October 8 article analyzed Israel’s intelligence failure and warned against continuing the war rather than endorsing the massacre. In his written response, he said he opposes violence as a political method and acknowledged that the article’s failure to address the crimes committed on October 7 was “jarring” and wrong.

He argued that the full scale of the atrocities was not yet known to him when he wrote it and said he would have condemned them had it been clear. Regarding the “martyrs” publication, Abu Shehadeh said it opposed Israel’s targeted-killing policy and was not intended to praise any particular individual.

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and State Attorney Amit Aisman found that the evidence, particularly the October 8 article, indicated that Abu Shehadeh had expressed support for a terrorist organization’s armed struggle against Israel. They said his written explanation did not adequately establish that the article meant something else, particularly given its timing.

Their position nevertheless stopped short of expressly recommending that the committee disqualify him. It noted that previous disqualifications rested on a broad, long-term body of evidence showing systematic conduct, while telling committee members to give the request serious consideration under the legal tests and in light of Abu Shehadeh’s arguments.

Hearing centers on whether Abu Shehadeh’s conduct meets legal standard

That tension lies at the center of Wednesday’s hearing: whether the material attributed to Abu Shehadeh, led by an exceptionally grave publication at an exceptionally grave moment, can satisfy a standard generally requiring a sustained pattern of conduct.

The same demanding threshold led the attorney-general and state attorney to find no legal basis for any of the other disqualification requests. In their response concerning Otzma Yehudit, they described the material against the party as deeply troubling and said it brought the list dangerously close to the prohibited line.

They nevertheless distinguished between claims that Otzma leader Itamar Ben-Gvir should not continue serving as national security minister and the evidence required to exclude the party’s entire 35-member slate from an election. Conduct that may justify removal from a ministerial position does not automatically prove that an anti-democratic objective is a dominant purpose of the full candidate list, they argued.

Abu Shehadeh accused opposition parties supporting his disqualification of joining an attempt to silence Arab voters. He said he would continue pursuing a nonviolent political path. Yashar, led by Gadi Eisenkot, and Blue and White, led by Benny Gantz, have announced support for barring him. Yashar is not represented on the committee and will not participate in the vote.

Election committee to hear case amid compressed timetable

Abu Shehadeh sought to postpone Wednesday’s hearing because he was hospitalized following an injury. Committee chairman and Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg rejected the postponement because of the compressed election timetable but permitted him to participate remotely.

The committee consists primarily of representatives of the factions in the outgoing Knesset, who will hear the arguments and vote. If it bars Abu Shehadeh, the decision will require Supreme Court approval before taking effect. A decision allowing him to run may also be challenged before the court.