## Facts

- Ahead of the 2003 elections for the Sixteenth Knesset, motions were filed with the Central Election Committee (CEC) seeking to disqualify MK Ahmad Tibi, an Arab member of the Knesset running for re-election.
- The motions alleged Tibi’s aims or actions fell within Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset (as amended in 2002), including:
  - rejection of Israel’s existence as a “Jewish and democratic state,” based largely on his public support for Israel as a “state of all its citizens”; and
  - support for an armed struggle against Israel, based on alleged associations and statements.
- The CEC voted to disqualify Tibi from participating as a candidate in the election.
- Tibi challenged the CEC decision before the Supreme Court of Israel, which heard the matter on an expanded panel before the election and issued a ruling permitting his candidacy, followed by written reasons later.

## Issues

1. Whether Tibi’s statements and political positions, including support for a “state of all its citizens,” constituted “negation” of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state under Section 7A.
2. Whether the evidence showed that Tibi supported an armed struggle against the State of Israel within the meaning of Section 7A.
3. What evidentiary and interpretive threshold must be satisfied to justify disqualification of an individual candidate under Section 7A.
4. How to weigh the state’s constitutional identity against the rights of voters and candidates to political participation, including minority representation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the CEC’s disqualification decision and authorized Tibi to run in the 2003 elections.
- The Court held the record did not satisfy the stringent threshold required to disqualify a candidate under Section 7A.
- The Court found insufficient proof that Tibi’s dominant aims were to negate Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state.
- The Court also found insufficient proof that Tibi supported armed struggle against the state as required by Section 7A.

## Legal Principles

- Disqualification under Section 7A is exceptional and must be applied narrowly because it limits the right to be elected and the electorate’s freedom of political choice.
- A candidate may be barred only on clear, persuasive, and convincing evidence that the candidate’s dominant and substantive aims or actions fall within a Section 7A ground (including negation of the state’s Jewish and democratic character or support for armed struggle).
- Advocacy for political or constitutional change through lawful, democratic means, including claims framed as equality-based or civic reform, does not alone constitute “negation” under Section 7A.
- Isolated, ambiguous, or context-dependent statements are insufficient; the proof must demonstrate systematic, central objectives or conduct meeting Section 7A’s prohibitions.
- Democratic elections presumptively require broad participation, including effective representation for minority citizens; exclusion demands a demanding evidentiary showing.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court reinstated Ahmad Tibi’s candidacy, holding that Section 7A permits disqualification only in rare cases supported by strong, contextual evidence of a candidate’s dominant anti-constitutional aims or support for armed violence, and that the evidence against Tibi did not meet that standard.


Cent. Election Comm. of the Sixteenth Knesset v. Tibi, EA 11280/02, 57(4) PD 1 (Isr. 2003)