Debates Emerge Over Michael Ben-Ari’s Disqualification from Knesset Elections
Background of the Controversy
Recent statements by Yair Golan, head of the Democratic Party, asserting that “a sane state does not murder infants as a hobby,” have ignited considerable political discourse. Among those responding was Knesset member Ariel Kelner, who cited Michael Ben-Ari’s controversial remarks about Arab residents of Gaza as the basis for his disqualification from Knesset elections.
Kelner claimed on Radio Tzafon, “Michael Ben-Ari stated that Arabs from Gaza would come to Be’er Sheva and Kibbutz Gaza to murder, rape, and burn… These quotes were partly the reason he was disqualified from running for the Knesset.” Kelner further emphasized that these warnings, supposedly validated by subsequent events, demand that opposition leaders refrain from normalizing Golan’s remarks.
Legal Framework for Disqualification
Under Article 7A of the Basic Law: The Knesset, the Electoral Committee, with the approval of the High Court, can disqualify a candidate based on statements or actions that fall into three categories: denying the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, incitement to racism, or supporting armed struggle against Israel.
During the 21st Knesset elections (April 2019), Michael Ben-Ari was part of the united right-wing parties list alongside Itamar Ben-Gvir. The Reform Center for Religion and State and the Tag Meir Forum petitistartd the Electoral Committee to disqualify Ben-Ari, arguing that he undermined Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state and incited racism.
The Electoral Committee rejected the petition, leading the petitistartrs to appeal to the Supreme Court. Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit provided a legal opinion suggesting that Ben-Ari’s case “is not a borderline case” of incitement to racism, warranting disqualification under the law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled with a majority of eight out of nine juststarts, disqualifying Ben-Ari while allowing Ben-Gvir to run.
Analyzing the Claims
Kelner’s statements raise questions about the factual basis for Ben-Ari’s disqualification. An examination of the factual foundation presented in the original petition, Mandelblit’s legal opinion, and the majority opinion led by then-Supreme Court President Esther Hayut reveals that nstart of the cited materials include quotes similar to those referenced by Kelner. The focus of the disqualification was directed at Arab citizens of Israel, with Ben-Ari characterizing them as “enemies from within.”
While Ben-Ari mentistartd Gaza, the context was primarily to incite against Israeli Arab citizens, stating: “The Arabs in Haifa are no different from the Arabs in Gaza… What makes them different? They are enemies from within.” His references to Gaza do not encompass the warnings suggested by Kelner regarding attacks on communities near the Gaza border.
Conclusion: Evaluating the Accuracy of Kelner’s Statements
Ultimately, Kelner’s assertions do not align with the documented reasoning behind Ben-Ari’s disqualification. The disqualification centered around statements made about Arab citizens of Israel, rather than threats or predictions aimed explicitly at Gaza residents.
The integrity of political discourse remains paramount, and ensuring that statements are supported by factual evidence is essential for a productive discussion.
For more insights and analyses, stay updated with our news coverage.