Far-Right Party Seeks to Bar Arab Lawmaker with New Evidence

The "Otzma Yehudit" party, led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, has filed an unusual request with Israel's Supreme Court to admit new evidence against Sami Abu Shehadeh, chairman of the Balad party, ahead of a hearing on his disqualification from the upcoming Knesset elections. The hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

The Central Elections Committee previously disqualified Abu Shehadeh, citing grounds of denying Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state and supporting armed struggle against it. The committee's decision was supported by 30 members, with committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg joining to make it 31 votes in favor of disqualification.

"Otzma Yehudit" claims that since the committee's decision, additional publications by Abu Shehadeh have surfaced that allegedly strengthen the case against him and contradict his previous denials. Among the new evidence are videos and a podcast where, according to the party, he justified the October 7th events and continued to express support for Hamas throughout the war.

Specifically, the party points to a video posted three days after the October 7th massacre, in which Abu Shehadeh reportedly referred to the events as a "significant political-strategic event" for the "Palestinian issue" and a "very big political event," while criticizing Israel without condemning the massacre. He is also alleged to have praised "martyrs" and Negev residents in the same publication.

Further evidence includes a podcast transcript where Abu Shehadeh allegedly described the war as "standing firm" and "legendary," and a video from a Balad conference speech where he downplayed the significance of October 7th, stating "History did not begin on October 7th." He also attributed the events to the "siege," "occupation," and "daily crimes" against Palestinians.

Abu Shehadeh had previously testified to the Elections Committee that he never supported armed struggle against Israel. He also submitted an affidavit claiming his earlier statements were made before the full extent of the massacre was known, and that he would have condemned it had he been aware of the casualties.