Netanyahu Challenges Likud Court Ruling Limiting Incumbents in Primaries

Prime Minister and Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu is contesting a recent party court decision that partially invalidated last week's Likud convention election results. The ruling barred current Knesset members, deputy ministers, and ministers from running in regional primaries, reducing available list spots for incumbents and sparking significant internal turmoil.

Following Netanyahu's sharp criticism of the Likud court, headed by Michael Kleiner, the party's legal advisor Ilan Bombach announced plans to appeal the decision at the Tel Aviv District Court. Bombach seeks to overturn the ruling and allow incumbents to compete in regional contests. It was also revealed that one judge involved in the decision had a conflict of interest, as his brother is running in the Beersheba and Negev district, a factor that allegedly influenced the ruling by limiting competition there.

The decision severely impacts incumbent Likud MKs, as Netanyahu secured eight reserved spots on the party list, with current polls projecting about 23 seats for Likud. This leaves roughly 16 realistic spots open, but with at least 36 incumbents vying for them, the primaries are expected to be fiercely competitive. Netanyahu’s reserved slots are at positions 5, 9, 11, 15, 18, 23, 26, and 29, with the last two unlikely to enter the Knesset based on current polling.

About a week ago, the Likud Central Committee approved Netanyahu and Haim Katz’s proposal granting the prime minister eight reserved list spots and modifying primary rules. However, Katz’s initiative to allow incumbents to run in regional primaries passed narrowly, leading to multiple appeals citing irregularities, fraud, and removal of observers at polling stations.

Likud MK David Bitan, one of the appellants, praised the court ruling, emphasizing the fight for party democracy and the importance of grassroots enthusiasm for electoral success. Bombach is expected to file the appeal in court imminently, arguing lack of authority, violation of natural justice, and a clear conflict of interest by one of the judges.