Former MK Compares High Court Treatment of His Candidacy to Arab Candidate's
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
The story in 4 lines · by baba
- Former MK Michael Ben-Ari criticized the Supreme Court's handling of Arab candidate Abou Shahada's hearing.
- Ben-Ari contrasted his own "lynching" with Shahada's "complete calm" at the court.
- He suggested the court's decision on Shahada was politically motivated.
- The discussion concerned Shahada's eligibility to run in upcoming elections.
Former Knesset Member Dr. Michael Ben-Ari has drawn a stark contrast between the Supreme Court's handling of his own candidacy challenges and those against Arab candidate Abou Shahada. Ben-Ari stated that his own case involved a "lynching" and absolute chaos, while Shahada's proceedings were characterized by "complete calm."
He suggested that the Supreme Court "did not want to shatter the conception" regarding the latter's candidacy. Ben-Ari's remarks were made in response to the High Court of Justice's discussion concerning the eligibility of Abou Shahada, a candidate for the Balad party, to run in the upcoming elections.
Ben-Ari, who was disqualified from running in past elections due to his anti-Arab views, implied that the court's approach was politically motivated. He argued that the court's decision to allow Shahada's candidacy, despite potential concerns, demonstrated a different standard compared to how his own challenges were treated.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
