Yesterday, the nine Justices of the Israel Supreme Court refused the request made by the “Otzma Yehudit” party to provide reasoning for their fundamental constitutional ruling on the disqualification of Sami Abu Shehadeh’s candidacy in the elections, in a proceeding that is not a High Court of Justice petition, but rather built into Basic Law: The Knesset.

In other words, even when a majority on the Court is in favor of applying an explicit Basic Law, in extremely clear-cut circumstances, our Justices refuse to establish a legal precedent to do so.

This is a case of double standards on three troubling levels:

1. A court that has set several precedents for applying the disqualification clause to Jewish right-wing parties refuses to set such a precedent, in circumstances that are far more severe, to the supporters of murderous terrorism.

2. A court that this very year insisted on issuing a ruling and a problematic precedent that limited the government’s authority to dismiss the head of the ISA, despite the fact that the petition had become moot upon ISA Director Ronen Bar’s resignation, and even though it was a mere administrative case rather than a constitutional, principled one like the Abu Shehadeh issue, suddenly forgot the need to set principled precedents when it comes to applying a Basic Law enacted by the Knesset in a constitutional and national case.

3. It is very evident that there is an intent to hide from the public a significant minority opinion among the Justices, who believe that even Abu Shehadeh’s terroristic statements do not count, in their circle, as support for terrorism.

The Supreme Court has failed legally, morally, nationally and publicly, in applying the Basic Laws enacted by the Knesset; in applying its own precedents; and in protecting the core of the democratic process in Israel, all in the name of obviously improper and political reasons.