Supreme Court Clears Ra'am, the Joint List and Cassif to Run; Abu Shehadeh Withdraws

Nine justices agreed that both lists could run. On Ofer Cassif's candidacy, the decision was divided. On Friday, 2 October, the Supreme Court reversed the disqualification of Ra'am and the Joint List and permitted Cassif to contest the election by seven votes to two. As Walla and News1 reported, Sami Abu Shehadeh's proceeding ended differently: he withdrew his candidacy, and the application to approve his disqualification was dismissed.

The outcome changes the electoral field following the Central Elections Committee's decisions, but it is not uniform across the cases. Two lists received unanimous decisions, one candidate a majority decision, and another left the race before a final ruling in his case. These distinctions matter for understanding what the court decided and, equally, what it did not.

Four proceedings, not one vote on all candidates

According to Walla's report on the Supreme Court decision, Thursday's hearing addressed four separate proceedings. Two concerned decisions to disqualify individual candidates, Cassif and Abu Shehadeh. Two were appeals by Ra'am and the Joint List against disqualification of the lists themselves. Holding a joint hearing did not require a common outcome.

The judgment summary, published in the Bagatz case‑law database, explains the procedural difference. Disqualifying an individual candidate requires Supreme Court approval. A disqualified list may appeal. The Elections Committee is therefore a significant stage, but its disqualification decision is not always the end.

The same summary identifies three grounds in Basic Law: The Knesset: denying Israel's character as a Jewish and democratic state, incitement to racism, and support for armed struggle against Israel by an enemy state or terrorist organization. The court explained that, given the standing of the rights to vote and stand for election, disqualification is applied under restrictive standards. The proceeding therefore concerns defined legal conditions, not agreement with a contender's views.

This also affects how the decision should be read: assessing an individual and assessing an entire list require attention to the subject of each proceeding. Criticism of one person's statement does not eliminate the separate examination of the list, just as permission for a list to run does not automatically decide every individual issue involving its candidates. The four cases illustrate this clearly, ending with different outcomes and degrees of agreement within the same panel.

The decision summary also stated that full reasons would be issued separately. The explanations published at this stage establish the decisions and central rationale but do not replace the fuller legal detail to follow. The practical outcome, who may run, can already be understood.

Cassif: Strong criticism and disagreement over the evidence threshold

According to Walla, every justice on the panel expressed reservations about Cassif's statements and actions. The majority nevertheless found the material presented fell short of the evidentiary threshold needed to bar him. The distinction between disapproval and outcome is central: a negative view of statements is not itself enough to prove grounds for disqualification.

News1 also detailed the minority position. Justices David Mintz and Alex Stein considered Cassif's conduct and statements to establish support for armed struggle against Israel and justify disqualification. The judgment should therefore not be described as unanimous agreement about the evidence's meaning. The disagreement was substantive, and a majority determined the result.

Conversely, according to ynet, Cassif argued at the Elections Committee hearings that the attempt to disqualify him portrays criticism of government policy as support for the enemy. He emphasized his opposition to violence and condemnation of Hamas's acts. These are his defense arguments, alongside those of the disqualification applicants. The ruling allows him to run; it does not require the public to accept his explanations or political positions.

Why both lists' disqualifications were reversed unanimously

No such division arose over Ra'am and the Joint List. According to Walla, the justices unanimously allowed the appeals, finding that the material before the Elections Committee did not meet the stringent requirements for disqualifying an entire candidate list. Here too, the decision focused on the foundation needed to deny electoral participation.

Adalah, representing the lists, published its main arguments before the hearing. Regarding the Joint List, it argued that applications relied heavily on matters previously considered and gave insufficient weight to the current platform. Regarding Ra'am, it argued the material did not establish the alleged connections. These are the lists' lawyers' positions, not independent findings by this publication.

The disqualification applicants took the opposite position. According to ynet, a Likud representative argued before the committee that evidence supported a connection between Ra'am and assistance to terrorist organizations. After the judgment, the Choosing Life Forum repeated its criticism, as News1 reported. Against these allegations stands the legal outcome: the entire panel found the submitted material insufficient to disqualify the lists. Read the allegation and ruling together.

Abu Shehadeh withdrew, and his proceeding was dismissed

According to hearing reports, the justices strongly criticized Abu Shehadeh's statements and indicated that approval of his disqualification appeared likely. He then announced his withdrawal. No final judgment approving his disqualification was therefore issued; a ruling became unnecessary, and the proceeding was dismissed.

The background was a dispute over an article he published after the 7 October massacre. According to Adalah's statement, his lawyers argued it should be read alongside other remarks opposing violence and Hamas's crimes. According to ynet, Abu Shehadeh himself told the committee he should not have written it. At the Supreme Court hearing, the justices expressed criticism and indicated the panel's inclination before he announced his withdrawal.

For voters, the decision preserves the option to vote for Ra'am and the Joint List and allows Cassif to participate. For Abu Shehadeh, withdrawal produces the opposite practical result. This is not a decision about who deserves the public's trust, but who may seek it. The political decision remains with voters after the court defined the boundaries of participation.