Israel's Central Elections Committee Debates Disqualification of Arab Parties

The Central Elections Committee held a heated debate regarding requests to disqualify the Joint List and Balad, two Arab political parties, from participating in upcoming elections. Lawyers representing the Likud party and the "Orut Ha'shachar" movement argued that the Joint List, which includes Hadash, Ta'al, and Balad, functions as a single entity. They cited Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh's meetings with representatives of a terror organization and a statement by Balad candidate Orly Noy supporting armed struggle for freedom as grounds for disqualification, suggesting these actions imply support for the elimination of Israel. Lawyer Bombach, representing Likud, referenced Justice Solberg's past remarks about the need for consistency between candidates' public stances and their court testimonies, arguing that the parties had not presented a new platform but merely softened their language while retaining their core ideology, including the concept of "a state for all its citizens," which the Supreme Court previously deemed contrary to Israel's character as a Jewish and democratic state.

"Orut Ha'shachar" lawyer Dov Hertzel contended that the party aims to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, its anthem, flag, and the Law of Return, calling for their complete removal from politics. He drew parallels to extreme scenarios, questioning what would happen if a party advocated for gassing Jews, suggesting such a proposal would not even be debated. Hertzel expressed feeling humiliated that a party seeking to destroy the Jewish state was even being considered.

The legal advisor to the government stated that the request to disqualify Balad within the larger Joint List should be dismissed, as one list cannot be disqualified within another. Regarding the Likud's request to disqualify the Joint List, the committee found insufficient grounds based on Noy's statement alone. Gabi Jabarin, representing the Joint List, decried the proceedings as an "Arab day," claiming it was an attempt to disqualify Arab representatives, including the Jewish member Yoav Segalovitz. He argued that disqualification should be based on a concrete action plan, not ideology, and questioned why a disqualification request was being made now when none was filed in previous elections.

Another representative for the Joint List acknowledged support for a Palestinian state, dismantling settlements, and demanding equality and social justice, but argued that the current disqualification efforts were a targeted attempt to suppress Arab voters and undermine democratic principles. MK Ahmed Tibi asserted that the issue was not the parties' platforms but their Arab identity, labeling the move as "unbridled racism" and a tactic to block Arab participation in elections. He stated there was no valid reason for disqualification, only a "fabrication of disqualification."

MK Rotman countered that the Supreme Court had erred in not disqualifying the Joint List in the past. MK Amit Halevi drew a parallel between the parties' goals and Hamas's ideology, stating, "The names are different but the goal is the same goal, the jihad is the same jihad. The elections are artificial. The state was established solely for the Jewish people and this discussion is a challenge to the righteousness of our path. You are backing jihad in disguise of theater and suits."

Ultimately, the request by "Orut Ha'shachar" to disqualify Balad was rejected. For the Likud's request to disqualify the Joint List, two votes were held: one on denying Israel's status as a Jewish state and another on supporting armed struggle against Israel. Both votes passed with 18 in favor, 5 against, and 1 abstention. The matter has been referred to the Supreme Court.