The Knesset Home Committee on Monday held a rare debate over whether or not to impeach Hadash-Ta’al MK Ofer Cassif from the Knesset, over the latter’s support of South Africa’s accusation against Israel in the International Court of Justice of alleged genocide in Gaza.
Committee chairman, Likud MK Ofir Katz, convened the debate after a petition spearheaded by Yisrael Beytenu MK Oded Forer received 85 signatures, above the necessary 70 signatures, including over 10 from the opposition parties Yisrael Beytenu and Yesh Atid.
The petition that Cassif signed said that “Israel is indeed taking methodological and fundamental steps to erase, starve, abuse, and expel the population of Gaza. It actualizes a policy of erasing possibilities of living, which leads to genocide. It methodologically kills broad swaths of population, leading academics, authors, doctors, medical teams, journalists, and simple citizens.”
Cassif signed petition accusing Israel of genocidal actions in Gaza
According to the quasi-constitutional Basic Law: The Knesset, impeachment proceedings may be initiated against an MK if they either “incited to racism” or “supported armed struggle, by an enemy state or terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.” Knesset Legal Advisor Sagit Afek stressed at the beginning of the debate that Cassif could only be impeached for actions committed during the current Knesset, and not past actions or statements. In addition, Afek stressed that in order to be impeached, there must be “clear and sharp” evidence that Cassif “actively supported” armed struggle against Israel. Afek added that the nature of the discussion was judiciary, and therefore the committee members had to be impartial and not take into account political considerations.
Forer argued that signing the petition qualified as “support armed struggle” against the State of Israel, since, had South Africa’s appeal been accepted, Israel would have been forced to cease its war in Gaza, which, according to Forer, would have supported the armed struggle currently taking place against Israel.
According to the quasi-constitutional Basic Law: The Knesset, impeachment proceedings may be initiated against an MK if he either “incited to racism” or “supported armed struggle, by an enemy state or terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.” Knesset Legal Advisor Sagit Afek stressed at the beginning of the debate that Cassif could only be impeached for actions committed during the current Knesset, and not past actions or statements. In addition, Afek stressed that in order to be impeached, there must be “clear and sharp” evidence that Cassif “actively supported” armed struggle against Israel. Afek added that the nature of the discussion was judiciary, and therefore the committee members had to be impartial and not take into account political considerations.
Cassif’s lawyer, Michael Sfard, argued in response that the fact that Cassif opposed the war did not mean that he supported Hamas’s armed struggle, and to claim so would create a slippery slope.
Sfard brought many quotes from after the war began on October 7, in which Cassif denounced Hamas’s attack, calling it “satanic” and condemning the “carnage.” According to Sfard, this showed that Cassif clearly did not support Hamas, and that there were 14 MKs or ministers who were quoted by South Africa as aiding their case – all members of the coalition, not including Cassif. Furthermore, the claim that Cassif, who belongs to the communist Hadash faction, supported the religious fundamentalist Hamas was absurd, Sfard argued.
Likud MK Hanoch Milvetsky repeatedly interrupted Sfard, accusing Cassif as being an “enemy of Israel” and that the Knesset would expel all “enemies of the state.”
Cassif himself spoke in his own defense, and argued that his signing the petition to the ICJ came out of a wish to end human suffering and pain by ending the war and bringing home the hostages, and not out of support for Hamas. He called the meeting “Orwellian,” and accused the coalition of beginning a process whose end would be the impeachment of any MK who opposed the government.
Cassif said in a prior statement that he felt it was his constitutional duty to support South Africa, saying “I will not give up the struggle for our existence as a moral society. That is true patriotism, not wars of revenge and calls for destruction, not unnecessary bloodshed, and not the sacrifice of civilians and soldiers in futile wars.”
The debate is scheduled to continue on Tuesday, and will then be held to a vote.
In order to proceed to a vote in the Knesset plenum, at least three-quarters of the committee members must vote in favor of Cassif’s expulsion. The committee has 17 members, so 13 must support the measure for it to pass. At least 90 MKs must then support his expulsion in the plenum. If expelled, Cassif will have the right to appeal the decision to the High Court of Justice.
To vote in the committee, committee members must attend every meeting on the issue and must be present for at least 50% of the time during the meetings.
At least thirteen MKs must vote in favor and meet criteria
The Knesset has never before impeached a fellow member. The closest it came was a Knesset debate over former Balad MK Dr. Basel Ghattas, who preceded impeachment by resigning from the Knesset after being convicted of providing convicted Palestinian terrorists with cell phones and SIM cards.
The question of impeachment drew international attention. In a letter sent last week to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrel, a group of 17 Members of the European Parliament (MEP) petitioned for the EU to oppose the impeachment.
The MEPs argued that Cassif has been a peace activist for many years campaigning for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians in line with EU policy, and added that Cassif’s expulsion would open a “pandora’s box” of possible expulsions from the Knesset for having dissenting views on the conflict.
Yuval Barnea contributed to this report.
Abhinav Thawait is a globe-trotting correspondent with a passion for international affairs. With a background in international relations, he offers a global perspective on the most pressing issues around the world. Abhinav’s curiosity takes his to the far corners of the earth, where he seeks to share untold stories and diverse viewpoints.
