The House Committee, chaired by MK Ofir Katz (Likud), convened on Monday and at the conclusion of a heated debate, voted to accept the request by MK Avichay Buaron (Likud) to recommend that the Knesset Plenum terminate the term of office of MK Ayman Odeh (Hadash-Ta’al).
In accordance with Article 116(d) of the Knesset Rules of Procedure, a Member of Knesset is granted the right to vote in the House Committee on such a request if he or she has participated in at least half of the committee’s meetings on the issue. Accordingly, sixteen Members of Knesset who participated in over half of the debate time were entitled to vote.
In the vote, 14 Members of Knesset supported the request, with two opposing votes. The decision on the request to remove MK Odeh from office will be turned over to the Knesset Plenum, where a majority of 90 Members of Knesset is required.
Committee Chair MK Katz said at the start of the debate, “As we saw in the previous debate, MK Odeh has not apologized and has not retracted his statements, but has only gone further in the comparison between hostages and terrorists and in severe accusations against IDF soldiers. He refuses to denounce terrorism and to recognize [terrorists], he always finds a way to justify their actions as legitimate organizations against the IDF soldiers. If MK Odeh wants to retract, I will allow him to do so at any stage of the debate.”
MK Limor Sonn Har Melech (Otzma Yehudit): “The motion to remove MK Odeh from office is not a political question, it’s a moral question. There is no justification for a person who supports terrorists and who is glad for the release of terrorists to serve as a Member of Knesset in Israel’s Knesset. There is a broad consensus on this motion, in the face of murderers. There is no left wing and right wing, there is good or bad, support for the side that wishes to live.
“Mr. Committee Chair, from an examination we conducted, the terrorists in question murdered over 700 civilians. Two of these murderers pulled the trigger that took the life of my husband, the man I loved and father of my children. I sit here on behalf of over 700 murder victims, and I present their outcry and the outcry of their families. Their blood cries out from the ground every time the voice is heard in the Knesset of the terrorist supporter, who welcomes the release of murderers—there is no other way to interpret this. He is referring to those who cruelly murdered our loved ones. I am here not only as a Member of Knesset, but as a person who has paid a personal price, and I am asking the State of Israel to say clearly—a person who rejoices over the release of murderous terrorists will not sit in Israel’s Knesset. In the name of justice, in the name of those who were murdered, vote in favor,” said MK Sonn Har Melech.
MK Gilad Kariv (Labor): “The debate is one hundred percent political and zero percent legal. When we see what happened here last week, we understand that this debate does not meet the most basic definition of the procedure, which is supposed to be quasi-legal.
“In the past months, I have argued with MK Odeh over various statements and we criticized each other sharply, including about the tweet, which is the only issue that we are supposed to address in this debate. In my view, the debate being conducted here is not really a debate on one statement or another by MK Odeh. The debate only appears to be about one statement or another, but it actually deals with something else—a sweeping attempt by the current coalition to delegitimize the Arab MKs, without exception. The debate here is an unequivocal attempt of delegitimization of Arabs in political life in Israel,” said MK Kariv.
MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beitenu) responded to MK Kariv’s allegations, saying, “I reject the attempt to portray this debate as targeting Arab Members of Knesset. In this case, the MK who supported terrorism is an Arab, but on the previous occasion the MK wasn’t an Arab. The essence of the debate is this—do MK Odeh’s actions meet the threshold that justifies removal from office or not. We have been at war for 633 days, with 50 hostages in Gaza and families that have paid a costly price, and this debate cannot be detached from the context in which MK Odeh’s statements were made.”
Knesset Legal Advisor Adv. Sagit Afik: “The justifications for the constitutionality of the procedure of removal from office are related to its unique procedure. The Members of Knesset were aware of what they signed. Of course, you are entitled to weigh the statements made in the debate, but the decision has to be based on the evidence for which the request was submitted.
“In accordance with the standards set in case law regarding section 7a [of Basic Law: The Knesset], it is required that a clear case exist, for which there is a significant mass of clear, unequivocal and compelling evidence showing that the support for armed struggle is a dominant characteristic in the candidate’s aspirations; that explicit statements or probable conclusions exist with the clear and unequivocal meaning of active support for armed struggle of a terrorist organization against the state; and that the candidate has committed deliberate actions to fulfill the aspirations in practice.
“Since we are dealing with a single statement, it can be argued for this reason that the request is not based on a significant mass of clear evidence for support for armed struggle, for dominance of such support or for the fact that MK Odeh is acting to fulfill the support in a real and consistent manner. This in and of itself raises the doubt whether [the statement] is enough to establish the existence of the cause.
“The public outrage and criticism of MK Odeh’s statement is understandable, and the comparison between the hostages and released terrorists is repugnant. However, given the narrow criterion, it is doubtful whether this statement meets the criterion dealing with support for the armed struggle of a terrorist organization and the other requirements,” said Adv. Afik.
Adv. Dr. Hassan Rafiq Jabareen, MK Odeh’s attorney: “In this procedure, a debate should be held on the basis of relevant factual infrastructure. And the factual infrastructure says that the debate will be opened when a signed request is submitted that substantiates the statements or the quotes for which the debate has begun. No signed request has been submitted to discuss the additional quotes. So I reiterate that I am not familiar with any other quote. There is no critical mass here, and we are not in a process of collecting evidence. The law for removal from office is only constitutional if it meets all the conditions.”
