The Arab Vote in Israel—Legality, Morality and Security

The Israeli High Court has a long record of flouting the law when it comes to Arab parties’ participation in Knesset elections.

As the October elections draw closer, the public debate focuses increasingly on the role of the Arab parties and the Arab electorate in the Jewish nation-state.

This distinction—between party and voter—is important for our discussion and is essential in illuminating a frequently misunderstood point in the public debate. This is particularly true in light of the rumors that a former senior police officer is planning to join the ranks of the Islamic Ra’am (The United Arab List) Party, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood—a move that would presumably obscure the true Islamist nature of the party among certain segments of the electorate.

“Arabs flocking to polls in droves…”

The question of Arab participation in parliamentary elections in the Jewish state was a major media item during the 2015 election, when PM Netanyahu warned that: “Arab voters are flocking to the polling stations in droves.”

This declaration was seized by the anti-Netanyahu elements as being somehow “racist”, purportedly hinting that ballots of Arab voters were of lesser value than those of Jewish voters, an accusation that seemed to resonate internationally, attracting much criticism of both Netanyahu and Israel. For example, the then (Obama) White House spokesman castigated Netanyahu for the comment, dubbing it a “cynical election day tactic” and a “transparent effort to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens and their right to participate in their democracy.”

However, the truth was quite different. The appeal was not intended to discourage or diminish the Arab electorate’s right to vote or constrain its right to exercise it, but to encourage the Jewish electorate’s right to vote, and urge it to exercise it.

Indeed, the statement (a 28-second video) was made in the context of an estimate that the right-wing was trailing at that ballot box, which induced Netanyahu to appeal to Likud supporters to get out and vote, stating: “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are flocking to the polling stations in droves. Left-wing organizations are bringing them in buses.” Clearly, this did not involve any racist slur, only grave concern that a right-wing defeat could result in the fate of the Jewish nation-state being determined by non-Jewish factions.

Prohibition on participation in elections

Significantly, the Israeli legislature has made provisions for barring certain parties/lists from participating in Knesset elections.

These are laid out in Israel’s Basic Law: The Knesset.

According to section 7(a) of this Basic Law, a list or candidate may be disqualified from running in the elections if their goals, actions, or statements explicitly or implicitly include one of the following:

1. Negation of the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state
2. Incitement to racism
3. Support for armed struggle against the State of Israel by a terrorist organization or enemy state

In virtually every election, the eligibility of Arab parties and candidates is brought before the Knesset Central Election Committee, the body which adjudicates appeals and reservations regarding who should be permitted and who should be barred from participation in the voting process.

Almost invariably, the Committee’s decisions are appealed to the High Court, which also almost invariably upholds appeals against the right-wing candidates, affirming charges those candidates deny while rejecting Committee decisions against Arab parties (Hadash, Ra’am Ta’al and Balad) or their candidates—despite the fact that charges against them were—explicitly or implicitly—acknowledged.

Indeed, none of these parties embrace the notion of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, thus clearly violating section 7(a), while several of its members have expressed sympathy for Palestinian terror (“resistance”), in further violation of the law.

A clear pattern of historical bias

For example, in the 2022 election, the Central Elections Committee initially disqualified Balad, on the grounds that it openly negated Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state. But the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the disqualification, allowing Balad to run. Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al also participated in the election. Balad ultimately failed to cross the electoral threshold for Knesset membership, while Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al won their way into the Knesset.

A clear historical pattern has emerged over recent decades.

The Central Elections Committee has on numerous occasions voted to exclude Arab parties, only to have the Supreme Court reverse its decision.

Thus, in 2003, the Committee disqualified Balad and Ta’al; the Supreme Court overturned the decisions. In 2009, the Committee disqualified Balad and the United Arab List-Ta’al; once again, the Supreme Court overturned the bans.

Perturbingly, more often than not, the High Court rulings blatantly contravene any criterion of common-sense interpretation of the law, often expounding contorted, almost oxymoronic arguments for its decisions.

For example, in a 2019 case, the Court held that calling for the realization of the principle “a state of all its citizens… does not necessarily imply the negation of the State of Israel as a Jewish state”. Go figure!

In the post-October 7th era, in which the vulnerability of the state was so vividly exposed, it is essential to vigorously enforce both the spirit and the letter of Clause 7(a) of the Basic Law: The Knesset.

An ominous prospect

Significantly, the joint parliamentary strength of the combined Arab parties could rise to 15 mandates (out of 120) and could determine whether the next government would be a more resolute right wing one or a more concessionary left-wing one—and who would be party to critical security decisions, including how to allot defense spending and whether or not to go to war.

Moreover, in light of the disastrous failures of concessionary policies in recent decades, this is a prospect that bodes ill for the future.

But in this regard, it is crucial to note that disqualifying Arab lists that contravene section 7(a) of Basic Law: The Knesset does not imply that individual Arab voters should be disenfranchised or have their individual voting rights infringed upon, merely that they must vote for lists that comply with the law.

After all, it is inconceivable that the future of the Zionist enterprise be determined by anti-Zionist Arab lists ranged together with non-Zionist left-wing parties.

This is an outcome Israel can ill afford.

©2026 Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.