Elections Disqualifications Cases to be Heard by Nine Justices of the Israeli Supreme Court on Thursday, 1 October 2026
Adalah submitted responses and appeals to the Israeli Supreme Court on 28-29 September 2026 against the Central Elections Committee's (CEC) decisions to disqualify all the Arab political lists, and two of their candidates, from running in the October 2026 Knesset elections: the United Arab List (Ra'am), led by MK Mansour Abbas; the Joint List, led by Dr. Yousef Jabareen and comprising Hadash/Jabha, Balad/Tajammu' and Ta'al; MK Dr. Ofer Cassif (Hadash/Jabha, Joint List); and Balad/Tajammu’ chairman, former MK Dr. Sami Abu Shehadeh.
Adalah argued that the CEC decisions disregard the Supreme Court's binding case law and rest on irrelevant, outdated or distorted evidence. The process is also discriminatory: the CEC disqualified every Arab list, while far-right lists were allowed to run despite extensive evidence of explicit incitement to violence against Palestinians. Approving any of these decisions, Adalah argued, would give judicial sanction to two separate, discriminatory tracks for exercising the right to vote and to stand for election.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the cases on Thursday, 1 October 2026, in Courtroom C, before an expanded panel of nine justices. Adalah's media team will be on site to coordinate interviews.
Former MK Dr. Sami Abu Shehadeh – In its response to the Supreme Court on behalf of Dr. Abu Shehadeh, Adalah argued that the evidentiary threshold for disqualification established in case law has not been met in Abu Shehadeh’s case, and that the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Adalah contended that under Israeli Supreme Court precedent, the disqualification of a candidate from elections is permissible only in the most extreme cases, based on a “critical mass” of clear and convincing evidence, and that any doubt must weigh in favour of allowing the candidate to stand for election.
Adalah argued that the entire case against Abu Shehadeh rests on a single published article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the events of 7 October 2023 that contains no explicit call in support of violence or armed struggle. The article’s only operative call is for a political process. Abu Shehadeh also acknowledged that publishing the article at that time was a mistake. According to Adalah, the CEC examined the article in isolation from the full body of evidence before it. “If there is a ‘critical mass’ of evidence in this case,” Adalah stated, “it is the extensive body of evidence presented by Abu Shehadeh demonstrating his consistent opposition to violence, to the killing of human beings and to the crimes committed by Hamas.” The CEC also ignored Abu Shehadeh’s parliamentary record and an expert opinion by Prof. As’ad Ghanem that distinguishes between an attempt to understand the political context of the attacks of 7 October and support for those acts. Adalah further argued that there is no precedent, in Israel or anywhere else, for disqualifying a candidate on the basis of a single statement or article, and that under European Court of Human Rights caselaw, harsh political criticism, even when it offends, shocks or disturbs, is insufficient to justify barring a candidate from elections.
Adalah’s legal team also stressed that the disqualification process is tainted by unlawful discrimination and selective enforcement. The CEC and the Attorney General (AG), in her response to the CEC and the Supreme Court, treated a single article as a ground to disqualify Abu Shehadeh. At the same time, extensive evidence was presented before the CEC against the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) Party and the Religious Zionist Party, including explicit statements by leaders and representatives of these parties encouraging Jewish violence against Palestinians, killing and starvation in the Gaza Strip, incitement to racism, and support for violence against Israeli Supreme Court justices. Nevertheless, the CEC and the AG determined that there was no legal basis to disqualify them. The AG even found that the actions and statements of the leader of Otzma Yehudit, Itamar Ben-Gvir, bring the list “dangerously close to the forbidden zone,” but did not consider them to amount to a “critical mass.” Adalah argued that the evidentiary threshold under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset cannot be allowed to vary according to a candidate’s national identity or political affiliation. Approving the decision, Adalah argued, would give judicial sanction to two separate tracks for exercising the right to vote and to stand for election: one for Arab candidates such as Abu Shehadeh, and another for far-right Jewish-Israeli candidates and lists.
Adalah Attorneys Dr. Hassan Jabareen, Hadeel Abu Salih, and Suma Basheer submitted the response on behalf of Abu Shehedah to the Supreme Court.
Click here to read the response [Hebrew]
MK Ofer Cassif – In response to the Supreme Court on behalf of MK Ofer Cassif, Adalah argued that the evidence submitted by the Likud is irrelevant to the grounds for disqualification, and that some of it was even distorted. For example, the Likud claimed that by signing a petition supporting South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Cassif expressed “unreserved support for Hamas”. Yet the petition says nothing about the 7 October attacks, let alone expresses support for it, and the very first paragraph of South Africa's application explicitly and unequivocally condemns the atrocities committed by Hamas. The response argues that the motion “reaches the height of absurdity” in claiming that Cassif harmed state institutions by appealing to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), of which the Knesset itself is a member, regarding violations of his political speech rights The Likud’s motion against MK Cassif has itself now drawn further IPU scrutiny. After it was filed, the IPU Secretary General wrote to Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana to express concern, particularly because the Likud had attached an earlier IPU decision on Cassif's case as evidence. The matter will be discussed at the next IPU Assembly in October. “It thus emerges,” the response states, “that it is in fact the applicant [Likud] whose conduct may cause harm to state institutions, including the Knesset, and not Cassif”.
Adalah further argued that the Likud deliberately filed a baseless motion for propaganda purposes, as it did against all the parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. According to the response, its aim is to delegitimize Cassif and his party and to accuse the legal system of providing a protective shield for the enemy in wartime. Clear proof of this, Adalah argued, is that the Likud's own attorney predicted, in his opening remarks before the CEC, that the motion would be rejected by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Likud MKs have submitted bills, none of which advanced, to add new grounds for disqualification, such as calling for a boycott and accusing Israel of murdering innocent people. According to Adalah, these bills show that the Likud itself believes existing law is not enough to strip its political rivals of the right to stand for election. Adalah therefore asked the Court to reject the motion and to impose substantial costs on the Likud for abuse of legal process.
Attorneys Dr. Hassan Jabareen and Ariel Remez submitted the response arguments on behalf of MK Cassif.
Click here to read the response [Hebrew]
The Joint List – In its appeal to the Supreme Court against the CEC's decision to disqualify the Joint List, Adalah argued that the decision is unfounded, was reached without substantive deliberation, and disregards both the binding case law of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s position. Adalah further argued that the vast majority of the issues and purported evidence raised by the Likud have already been raised and rejected in the past, by both the Court and the CEC.
The appeal states that the Likud's claims “do not establish that the appellant [The Joint List] supports the armed struggle of an enemy state or a terrorist organization against the State of Israel, and certainly do not show that such support is a central and dominant goal of the list.” Adalah also argued that the CEC ignored the fact that the Likud's motion did not address the lists' current platforms at all, and even relied on an outdated Balad platform. The appeal also cites remarks made before the CEC by Joint List Chairman Dr. Yousef Jabareen on the list's main priorities in the next Knesset: fighting crime in the Arab society, advancing equality and resource allocation, expanding the jurisdiction of Arab towns, supporting a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel on the 1967 borders, and opposing the occupation.
The appeal on behalf of the Joint List was submitted by Adalah Attorneys Dr. Hassan Jabareen, Hadeel Abu Salih and Lubna Tuma.
Click here to read the appeal [Hebrew]
The United Arab List (Ra'am) – In its appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of Ra'am, Adalah argued that the CEC's decision contradicts established case law and lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis, falling far short of the “critical mass” of clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence required for disqualification. The motions recycle old claims and evidence that have already been examined and rejected by both the CEC and the Supreme Court. They ignore Ra'am's current platform, its many years of parliamentary work and its current candidates. Instead, they rely mainly on online articles and media reports whose content has been denied and never verified, and which under case law, cannot serve as a basis for disqualifying a list.
The motions also sought to tie Ra'am to several nonprofit associations, in order to claim that it supports armed struggle against Israel. Adalah stressed that none of these associations has been designated as a terrorist organization, and that the motions presented no evidence of any link between them and Ra'am. The Attorney General reached the same conclusion: the evidence does not support the claims, and there is no legal basis for disqualifying the list. The CEC ignored her position, as well as clarifications from its own Chair on the binding legal standards.
Adalah further argued that the decision was driven by political and ideological considerations, citing remarks by MK Gotliv before the CEC that the High Court had overturned such decisions in the past and that it was the MKs' responsibility to try again.
The appeal on behalf of Ra’am was submitted by Adalah Attorneys Dr. Hassan Jabareen and Dr. Suhad Bishara.
Click here to read the appeal [Hebrew]
