The Where and Where of the High Court: From Michael Ben-Ari to Ofer Cassif - The Lesson the High Court Refused to Learn | Dr. Eitan Lesri
Dr. Eitan Lesri argues that the High Court of Justice has not internalized the lessons of October 7 and continues to apply unequal standards in disqualifying candidates. He compares the disqualification of Michael Ben-Ari (2019) on grounds of incitement to racism with the non-disqualification of Ofer Cassif, criticizing the high evidentiary threshold of "critical mass" under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset. The article calls for a reexamination of the boundaries of defensive democracy in the post-massacre era.
Dr. Eitan Lesri, an expert in government and public policy, analyzes in his article the High Court's decision to allow Ofer Cassif to run in the elections for the 26th Knesset, comparing it to the disqualification of Michael Ben-Ari in 2019. Lesri argues that the court has not learned the lessons of the events of October 7, 2023, and continues to apply a nearly insurmountable evidentiary threshold of "critical mass" under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset, while in the past it decisively disqualified a right-wing candidate. He points to an apparent contradiction in the conduct of President Yitzhak Amit, who was part of a majority that did not disqualify Cassif but simultaneously led to the disqualification of Sami Abu Shahadeh in the same proceeding. The article criticizes the lack of a reasoned ruling regarding Abu Shahadeh after he withdrew his candidacy, and calls on the High Court to develop an updated interpretation of defensive democracy. Lesri emphasizes that the criticism is not a call to weaken the court, but to update its legal tools for the new security reality.