Israeli Lawmaker Seeks to Disqualify MK Ofer Cassif from Knesset
Oded Forer, chairman of the Yisrael Beiteinu faction, has submitted a formal request to the Central Elections Committee to disqualify Member of Knesset Ofer Cassif from running in the 26th Knesset elections. The request, filed under Section 7a of the Knesset Basic Law, centers on Cassif's alleged consistent support for armed struggle against the State of Israel and his characterization of those harming Israeli soldiers as "freedom fighters."
The petition details numerous statements and actions by Cassif, including his assertion that "there is no such thing as terrorism against soldiers," his labeling of those attacking Israeli soldiers as "guerrillas" and "freedom fighters," and his claim that Palestinians have the right to use armed means against the occupation. Cassif's signature on the petition supporting South Africa's case against Israel at the Hague, his call for Israeli soldiers to disobey orders during wartime, and his refusal to define Hamas as a terror organization were also cited.
The request emphasizes that these are not isolated incidents but a systematic pattern of behavior over many years. During the 25th Knesset term, Cassif faced four sanctions from the Ethics Committee, resulting in a total of ten months of suspension from Knesset activities. Additional evidence presented includes Cassif's calls to abolish the Law of Return, his explicit opposition to Zionism, and repeated comparisons of Israel and Zionism to Nazi Germany.
Forer stated that while the evidence presented to the Supreme Court in 2019 was deemed insufficient, Cassif has not changed his ways but has only escalated them. He argued that democracy should not permit individuals who support struggle against the state to use the Knesset as a platform for anti-state activities. The current petition is based on a comprehensive evidentiary foundation, including full interviews, direct tweets, Knesset speeches, recordings, international actions, and official Knesset committee decisions, which the petitioner claims is substantially different from the evidence presented in 2019.
