Adalah Legal Center Appeals Election Committee Disqualifications of Arab Lists

The Adalah Legal Center filed two appeals with the Israeli Supreme Court on Tuesday against the Central Elections Committee's decisions to disqualify the Joint List and the United Arab List from the upcoming Knesset elections. The center also submitted responses to the disqualification of Sami Abu Shehadeh, head of the National Democratic Alliance party, and Knesset Member Ofer Cassif. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the appeals on Thursday.

In its appeal against the Joint List's disqualification, Adalah argued that the committee's decision lacked legal basis and was made without substantive discussion, ignoring binding Supreme Court precedents and the Attorney General's stance. The appeal stated that the Likud party's claims, which formed the basis for the disqualification, had largely been previously rejected by the courts. Adalah asserted that the Likud's allegations did not prove the list's support for armed struggle against Israel or any terrorist organization, and that the party relied on an outdated platform instead of the lists' current political programs. The appeal included statements from Joint List head Yousef Jabareen, outlining the list's priorities, such as combating crime in the Arab community, promoting equality, and supporting a two-state solution.

Adalah's response on behalf of Sami Abu Shehadeh contended that the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold for disqualification and suggested the opposite conclusion. The legal team argued that disqualification is only permissible in extreme cases based on "overwhelming evidence," and any doubt should favor the candidate. They highlighted that the entire case against Abu Shehadeh rested on a single article that did not explicitly call for supporting armed struggle, and that Abu Shehadeh himself acknowledged the poor timing of its publication. Adalah also pointed out that the committee ignored expert opinions and Abu Shehadeh's parliamentary record, which demonstrated his opposition to violence. The center emphasized that there is no precedent for disqualifying a candidate based on a single statement and that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that sharp political criticism, even if shocking, is insufficient grounds for disqualification. Adalah accused the committee of selective enforcement, citing disqualifications of right-wing parties despite their explicit calls for violence and incitement, while Abu Shehadeh faced disqualification over a single article.

In the response filed on behalf of MK Ofer Cassif, Adalah argued that the evidence provided by the Likud was irrelevant and distorted. The Likud had claimed Cassif's signature on a petition supporting South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice constituted "unconditional support for Hamas," despite the petition's explicit condemnation of Hamas's actions. The response also criticized the Likud's claim that Cassif harmed state institutions by addressing the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which the Knesset is a member. Adalah suggested that the Likud's actions, not Cassif's, could potentially harm state institutions, referencing a letter of concern from the IPU Secretary-General to the Knesset Speaker. The legal team asserted that the Likud filed a frivolous lawsuit for propaganda purposes, aiming to delegitimize Cassif and his party and accuse the judiciary of aiding Israel's enemies.

Regarding the United Arab List, Adalah's appeal stated that the disqualification decision violated judicial precedent and lacked sufficient evidence. The appeal reiterated that disqualification requires "overwhelming evidence" and that the conditions were not met. It noted that the grounds for disqualification were based on previously rejected claims and did not present new evidence. Adalah argued that the requests ignored the list's current platform and parliamentary activities, relying instead on unreliable media reports. The center also stressed the lack of proven connection between the list and alleged associated organizations, and that the Attorney General had concluded the provided materials were insufficient legal grounds for disqualification. Adalah urged the Supreme Court to reject the disqualification requests and impose significant legal costs on the Likud for misusing judicial procedures.