Supreme Court allows Ra'am, the Joint List and Ofer Cassif to run in the election; Abu Shehadeh withdraws

On 2 October, the Supreme Court overturned the disqualifications of Ra'am and the Joint List and allowed them to contest the election for the 26th Knesset. The decisions concerning both lists were unanimous. The outcome for MK Ofer Cassif was similar, but by a majority of seven judges to two. Sami Abu Shehadeh, by contrast, withdrew his candidacy, so the court did not need to make a final ruling on his disqualification.

For voters, the immediate implication is that both lists can participate in the election and Cassif can be included on his list. Behind the common headline are three different legal outcomes: overturning list disqualifications, declining to approve a candidate's disqualification and proceedings rendered unnecessary by a withdrawal.

Both lists were approved without disagreement on the panel

According to Davar's report on the court decision, the panel comprised nine judges led by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit. All agreed to allow Ra'am and the Joint List to participate after the Central Elections Committee decided to bar them. Globes also reported that the committee's decisions on both lists were overturned unanimously.

A decision on a list concerns the ability to put all its candidates before voters as part of that list. Its impact is therefore broader than whether one individual may run. However, approving a list does not predetermine every question concerning each candidate, as the individual proceedings heard alongside it illustrate.

The panel addressed eligibility to participate in the election, not whom people should vote for. The decision gives the lists no political endorsement from the court and does not remove their opponents' right to criticize them. It determines the outcome of the disqualification proceedings brought before the judges.

Cassif may run, but two judges dissented

In Cassif's case, Justices David Mintz and Alex Stein formed a minority supporting disqualification. According to reports on the summary of reasons in Israel Hayom and Zman Yisrael, the majority sharply criticized his statements and actions but found that the evidentiary basis required to disqualify a candidate had not been established.

The reports described a disagreement over whether the material presented reached the stringent threshold established in case law. It would therefore be wrong to describe the ruling as though all judges accepted Cassif's position or saw no problem with the statements discussed. Equally, the minority view should not be presented as the binding outcome of the proceedings.

At the hearing the previous day, as reported by ynet, Cassif argued that partial quotations had been presented and that he opposed armed struggle. That was his position in the proceedings. The final decision came not because an absence of disagreement was established, but despite disagreement, through the required majority on the panel.

In practical terms, the majority means he may run. In public debate, both the majority's reasoning and the minority's criticism can be examined. Conflating those two levels risks turning legal reporting into a broader claim than the court decided.

Abu Shehadeh withdrew his candidacy and remains Balad chairman

During the hearing on 1 October, President Amit said a majority appeared to favor approving Abu Shehadeh's disqualification and suggested that he consider withdrawing. According to ynet's report, the proposal was intended to allow proceedings to end without a judgment in his case. The following day, notice of his withdrawal was submitted.

Davar reported that Balad explained the decision was coordinated with Abu Shehadeh and made out of responsibility toward the party, the list and the public it represents. The party stressed that he would continue as its chairman. Removing his name from the Knesset race is therefore not an announcement that he is retiring from all political activity.

The distinction also matters when describing the legal outcome. The court indicated the direction its decision appeared to be taking, but withdrawal removed the need for a final ruling on disqualification. The proceedings should not be credited with a reasoned judgment that was never issued, nor described as approval of his candidacy. The practical outcome is that Abu Shehadeh will not run as part of the list in this election.

How disqualification applications reach the court

An explainer published in August by Israel Democracy Institute researchers Dr. Ofir Hadad and Dr. Amir Fuchs describes the difference between the routes. Disqualification applications are first considered by the Central Elections Committee. When a candidate is disqualified, the decision requires Supreme Court approval; when a list is disqualified, it may appeal to the court.

The committee is not a panel made up solely of judges. A Supreme Court justice heads it, but its membership includes faction representatives according to their representation in the outgoing Knesset. That helps explain why a committee vote and a judicial ruling can end differently: they take place in different bodies with different roles.

According to the explainer, Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset lists grounds including negating Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, incitement to racism and support for armed struggle by an enemy state or terrorist organization against Israel. Merely alleging that one of these grounds applies is insufficient; the material presented in support must be examined.

This is general information about the framework. In the current proceedings, joining the applications brought several names and lists into one discussion, but did not remove the need to distinguish the outcome of each route.

What the ruling means for voters, and what it leaves open

Anyone following the election needs to update their picture of who is running: the Elections Committee's decision alone no longer describes the legal position. Both lists were approved, Cassif was approved by majority vote and Abu Shehadeh withdrew. Headlines written at the application or hearing stage may show a picture that has already changed.

The ruling does not establish how many votes the lists will receive, what turnout will be or which partnerships will form after the election. Separate data is needed to establish such effects. The right to appear before voters is a condition for participation, not an electoral result.

The full reasons and the lists' official steps will add detail later. To understand the decision already issued, the central distinction is between criticism of a candidate's statements and a finding that the legal threshold for excluding them has been met. In Cassif's case, most judges separated those questions; in Abu Shehadeh's case, proceedings ended after he withdrew his candidacy.