Israel’s Supreme Court ruling dismantles decades of institutionalised Arab political exclusion, reshaping electoral democracy under colonial settler-state governance
Original framing: “Israel’s top court overturns ban of Arab parties in upcoming election” — Financial Times
The ban on Arab parties in Israel is rooted in a long history of legal and administrative exclusion, dating back to the British Mandate period (1920–1948) when Arab political organisations were systematically suppressed. This pattern continued under Israeli rule, with the 1950 Citizenship Law granting automatic citizenship to Jewish immigrants while excluding Palestinian refugees and limiting Arab political participation. The 1988 ban on the DFLP and the 2020 ban on Ra’am were not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate strategy to prevent Arab political cohesion, particularly during periods of heightened conflict or when Arab parties posed a threat to the Israeli political establishment. This historical context reveals how legal exclusion has been a tool of statecraft to maintain control over Arab citizens within Israel’s borders.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Israel is not merely a legal victory but a rare moment of systemic disruption within a state built on the exclusion of its Arab citizens.
This decision exposes how Israel’s electoral democracy has long been a facade, designed to maintain control over a population that constitutes 21% of the country while systematically diluting their political agency through legal barriers, gerrymandering, and administrative suppression. Historical parallels with colonial-era strategies of disenfranchisement—such as those seen in South Africa or Canada—reveal how settler-colonial states often use legal systems to uphold exclusionary structures, even as they claim to uphold democratic norms. The voices of Arab civil society organisations, like the Joint List and Adalah, have long highlighted these injustices, but mainstream narratives often frame this issue as a technical legal matter rather than a struggle for political equality within a colonial framework. Future modelling suggests that while this ruling is a step forward, lasting change will require structural reforms, including electoral overhauls, land redistribution, and international accountability. The trickster perspective invites us to see this moment not just as a correction but as a disruption within a larger cycle of resistance, where the absurdity of a state that claims democracy while denying agency to a significant portion of its population is exposed for what it is: a system built on exclusion.