Israeli Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Likud Party Dispute Over Candidate Eligibility

The Israeli Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to intervene in an internal dispute within the Likud party concerning the eligibility of sitting Knesset members, ministers, and deputy ministers to run for reserved district seats on the party's Knesset list. The court heard a petition filed by MK Afif Amin Abed against the Likud party's internal tribunal decision, which annulled a party vote allowing incumbent officials to compete for these reserved district slots. The Supreme Court justices, including Daphna Barak-Erez, Ofer Groskopf, and Alex Stein, indicated their intention to reject the petition, prompting Abed to withdraw it.

During the hearing, the judges criticized bringing the party's internal conflict before the Supreme Court. Justice Barak-Erez questioned the necessity of the court's involvement and urged the party factions to resolve the dispute internally. Justice Groskopf emphasized that the party's tribunal is the appropriate authority to decide such matters and that the court should respect its rulings, especially since the district court had already declined to intervene.

The Likud tribunal had invalidated the provision approved at the party conference that allowed sitting officials to run for district seats, restricting them instead to the national list unless they resigned and did not receive state funding for primaries. The tribunal ruled that sitting Knesset members cannot compete for guaranteed district representation slots without resigning from the Knesset and foregoing public campaign financing. This decision followed several petitions filed after the party conference, which had narrowly approved the contested provision amid allegations of procedural irregularities during the vote.

The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene upholds the Likud tribunal's decision, maintaining the separation between national list slots and district representation slots within the party's candidate selection process. The ruling underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in internal party governance unless exceptional legal grounds exist.