Exclusive: Balad leader Sami Abu Shehadeh on Israel's 'dangerous' anti-Arab voter exclusion

Just weeks ahead of Israel’s first national elections in the shadow of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the Central Elections Committee moved to bar Palestinian political representation from the ballot, singling out Arab political parties and Balad leader Sami Abu Shehadeh for personal disqualification. While petitions against Palestinian lawmakers are nothing new in Israeli politics, this election marked a distinct turning point: Abu Shehadeh’s exclusion was backed not only by the far-right coalition of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Benjamin Netanyahu, but by a broad Zionist consensus extending deep into the self-styled liberal camp, including Yair Golan’s Democrats party.

The case against him rests on a single opinion piece published on 8 October 2023 in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, The New Arab's Arabic edition, an accusation Abu Shehadeh rejects as a calculated attempt to lower the political ceiling for Palestinian citizens, suppress voter turnout and criminalise dissent over wartime atrocities. Speaking to The New Arab in his hometown of Jaffa, the veteran politician discusses the legal and political battle ahead, the erosion of Israel’s remaining judicial constraints, the role of the Zionist left, and why Balad’s founding vision of a true "state of all its citizens" remains, in his view, the only viable democratic horizon in an era of ethnic supremacy and state violence.

Below is a transcript of the interview, edited for clarity and brevity

Q: The Central Elections Committee's decision to disqualify Arab slates and bar you personally received backing across Zionist parties, from Itamar Ben-Gvir to Yair Golan. What does this broad consensus to exclude you signal to you?

Sami Abu Shehadeh: A week ago, the Central Elections Committee in Israel, which is a political body rather than a professional or judicial panel and is made up of parties represented in the Knesset, decided to disqualify not only me but effectively the entire Arab minority from the upcoming Knesset elections. The Arab minority represents 20% of the population of Israel.

Two Arab political slates are running in these elections. Out of 38 lists contesting the vote, only the Arab parties were disqualified. They were barred without any valid legal basis, simply because we think differently and have distinct political platforms.

Regarding my personal disqualification, they cited an article I wrote on 8 October, claiming it violates Israeli law. But the real issue is electoral mathematics: Netanyahu has run the numbers and is trying to steal the election. Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and the Israeli far right know that higher turnout among Palestinian Arab citizens poses the greatest obstacle to Netanyahu returning as prime minister. That is why five separate petitions were filed against our two slates, targeting the Joint List, Ra'am, myself, my colleague Dr Ofer Cassif and Balad.

The committee demonstrated a clear consensus against the Arab community. The ease with which the decision was taken, and the way Israeli Jewish society reacted to it, show the dangerous situation we are facing.

Q: Unlike other petitions, including Ofer Cassif’s, your disqualification received direct backing from Yair Golan and the Democrats. How do you understand this alignment between the far right and centre-left over a single published article?

SAS: The Zionist consensus stretching from Yair Golan to Itamar Ben-Gvir against me, demanding my exclusion as a representative of Balad and the Arab minority, is extremely revealing. These different Zionist factions are trying to impose a single narrative that allows no dissent. They cannot tolerate voices opposing the war or platforms that speak about genocide, apartheid, occupation, state violence and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of our people in the West Bank. Any voice challenging the official narrative meets unified Zionist opposition.

Consider Yair Golan, who presents himself as the leader of the Zionist left and the Democrats, aligning directly with far-right figure Itamar Ben-Gvir against a political leader whose platform centres on freedom, justice and equality for all. This is why I call it racism. The greatest threat to racism is equality. Because Balad leads the fight for full civic equality in Israel, it is treated as fundamentally illegitimate by a racist establishment.

Q: Would you say the campaign against you is not really about the stated premise, an article published in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and Arab48 on 8 October 2023, but rather a convenient pretext to silence a prominent Palestinian political voice?

SAS: Since 7 October, the Israeli government has moved aggressively to suppress dissent against the war. In the petition filed against me, Ben-Gvir openly boasts about shutting down free expression and silencing dissenting views. He says so without hesitation. The alarming reality is that Ben-Gvir is not an isolated actor. He is an influential government minister backed by a Knesset majority.

Ben-Gvirism and Kahanism now dominate Israeli political discourse and command a significant share of public opinion. An extreme and openly racist figure has moved from the margins into the political mainstream. Silencing Sami Abu Shehadeh is not simply about me personally; it is an attempt to silence any critical voice exposing Israel's discriminatory policies against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and within the 1948 borders, where we make up a fifth of the population.

Q: These are the first national elections following the war in Gaza. How do you assess the broader shift in Israeli society and its attitude towards Palestinian citizens within the 1948 borders?

SAS: These elections follow an ongoing genocide. Regrettably, Israeli state institutions and wider society continue to reject any serious scrutiny of the war crimes inflicted on our people in Gaza and the West Bank. The political establishment is trying to impose a single narrative that erases Palestinian reality.

Against this, we take a principled, universal human rights position: we oppose harm to any civilian, Israeli or Palestinian, whether before, on or after 7 October. Yet Israeli discourse focuses solely on its own victimhood, while ignoring the killing of more than 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza, the majority women, children and infants, more than 100,000 injured, the destruction of entire cities and the displacement of tens of thousands in the West Bank amid daily settler attacks.

While we categorically condemn violence against civilians on 7 October, we equally condemn the war crimes committed against Palestinians before, during and since. Our platform remains rooted in universal human rights, justice and equality. Neither Balad nor I have ever advocated violence or armed struggle; our programme is entirely political and democratic.

Q: The case against you rests on this single article, with no other evidence presented from decades of public life. Do you believe you are being made a sacrificial lamb to lower the political ceiling and discourage civic participation among Palestinian citizens of Israel?

SAS: What took place in the committee was a kangaroo court. After relentless media incitement against me, without any meaningful opportunity to defend myself in an openly hostile press, the demonisation has reached the point where I fear for my personal safety in public.

Notably, the Attorney General previously acknowledged that nothing in my 8 October article calls for armed struggle. Yet state authorities have offered me up as a sacrificial lamb to appease a far-right movement that relentlessly attacks the judiciary. That does not change the fundamental truth. In 30 years of public life, investigators could not find a single instance of me endorsing violence or armed struggle. That is no accident; it reflects who I am and what Balad stands for as a party committed to international law.

We are living through an absurd reality in which Itamar Ben-Gvir, a figure who has openly called for starvation, mass devastation and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, takes me to court. A politician who incites hatred sits in judgement of a leader calling for an immediate end to the violence, an escape from the cycle of bloodshed and a historic compromise based on equality for both peoples. This is a critical test of what remains of the Supreme Court's judicial independence.

Q: Balad champions the concept of "a state of all its citizens" as the basis for genuine equality and justice. Given the profound rightward shift in Israeli society, is this vision still achievable, or was your disqualification intended to eliminate that political project?

SAS: Balad's central project is genuine civic equality, which poses the greatest ideological challenge to Zionist parties whose foundations depend on ethnic supremacy. They insist on systemic privileges for Jewish citizens over the indigenous population. Balad was established specifically to offer a democratic alternative based on universal rights for everyone, Israelis and Palestinians alike.

It is hardly surprising that racists despise Balad; demanding equality forces them to look in the mirror. Whenever I speak in Europe or North America and explain that our goal is to transform Israel into a state of all its citizens, audiences are astonished. They ask: "How can a country claim to be a democracy while rejecting equal citizenship?" A state that rejects civic equality is inherently at odds with democracy.

Israel clings to the image of a democratic society while systematically enforcing segregation and aggressively targeting the one party committed to genuine equality.

Q: In this climate, does Balad's vision of a state of all its citizens still have practical viability after 7 October and the devastation in Gaza?

SAS: After the staggering war crimes in Gaza, the seizure of land in the West Bank and intensified repression within the 1948 borders, Balad's vision is more urgent than ever. In this dark period, our historical responsibility is to keep alive a beacon at the end of the tunnel.

We must prevent both Palestinians and Israelis from surrendering to despair, because abandoning hope means resigning ourselves to an endless cycle of bloodshed and vengeance. War is a political choice, just as peace is a political choice. We have a duty to preserve an alternative horizon for future generations.

Q: Turning to the Supreme Court: it has historically overturned Central Elections Committee bans, but its composition has shifted significantly to the right. Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg also broke with a 23-year precedent by voting for your disqualification. Given these dynamics, is your appeal a genuine legal petition or also a political attempt to expose the court's limitations?

SAS: Supreme Court justices do not operate in a vacuum; they are subject to societal pressures and the prevailing political climate. If the court functions as a genuinely independent legal institution and adheres strictly to jurisprudence, there are no legal grounds to disqualify me, Dr Ofer Cassif or the Arab slates.

The central question is whether Ben-Gvirism has completely captured the judiciary, just as it has captured law enforcement and government ministries. If the court has succumbed to that ideology, we need to confront that reality openly. I cannot accept being deprived of the right to defend myself simply because the forum itself has become fundamentally compromised.

We are appealing to the Supreme Court to force a choice: will it permit a legitimate platform centred on democratic equality, or will it align the state's legal framework with the demands of the extreme right? I have nothing to hide. Even under the most adverse interpretation of my writing, disagreement with the ideas expressed in an article does not constitute legal grounds to ban an elected political leader.

Q: Did the backing of the Zionist left, specifically Yair Golan and the Democrats, give the court political cover to uphold your ban by signalling that your disqualification falls within a broader political consensus?

SAS: Yair Golan’s position was entirely predictable. During this war, he made public statements supporting the denial of essential supplies to civilians in Gaza. Given that record, his position here is hardly surprising.

The real issue is whether the Supreme Court has the integrity to assess my case strictly on its legal merits, insulated from political considerations. Upholding this ban would extinguish what little democratic space remains. To bar an experienced political representative over one article, while allowing figures like Ben-Gvir, who openly preach expulsion and devastation, to run unchecked, is indefensible by any objective legal standard.

Q: Should the Supreme Court ultimately uphold the ban, what are your immediate political and organisational plans ahead of election day?

SAS: We will never allow Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, the court or any other establishment force to dictate the political leadership of the Palestinian Arab community in Israel.

If the disqualification stands, I will do everything I can to ensure the Joint List's success. Netanyahu’s primary objective is to suppress turnout in our community and guarantee the return of his coalition. We will do the opposite: mobilise our voters, maximise participation and prevent this extreme-right bloc from retaining power. Once the election is over, we will conduct a thorough assessment of our long-term political strategy.