The unusual letter sent by Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg to Shin Bet Director David Zini has already sparked controversy. It confirms a familiar concern: Qatar has sought to influence Israeli public opinion, including through activities examined in the so-called Qatargate affair, which is awaiting a decision by prosecutors on whether to file criminal charges.
At this stage, however, it is important to emphasize that the extent of any Qatari interference in Israel's parliamentary election, if such interference occurred at all, remains unclear, as does the nature of any actions taken. According to Sohlberg's letter, there are indications of possible election bribery involving a foreign state and individuals in Israel.
What does Israeli law say?
Election bribery is prohibited under Israeli law. Section 122 of the Knesset Elections Law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years for violations.
When a foreign state is involved, the possibility of prosecuting the party offering the bribe is remote. However, the law also makes accepting a bribe a criminal offense.
The provision applies to anyone who "receives or agrees to receive a bribe, for themselves or another person, in order to vote or refrain from voting, either altogether or for a particular list of candidates."
Former Knesset member Shmuel Flatto-Sharon was charged and convicted under the election bribery provision, not for directly paying voters but for promising them benefits in exchange for their support, according to a 1984 Supreme Court ruling.
In that decision, the justices explained the principle underlying the prohibition on offering benefits in exchange for votes.
"Freedom of choice means not only the physical freedom to place a ballot in the ballot box, but also, and above all, the complete freedom to go through the voting process as a free person, mentally and intellectually," the court wrote.
"Therefore, any act that restricts or eliminates, directly or indirectly, the voter's freedom of thought and ability to genuinely express their preferred course of action and worldview according to their independent judgment, whether through a benefit that undermines that freedom or through the imposition of another person's views, violates the fundamental principle of electoral integrity and independence."
The justices went on to warn that tolerating such practices would undermine the foundations of democracy.
"Such acts are therefore fundamentally unacceptable," the ruling said.
"A different or more lenient approach to this issue, acceptance of such acts and participation in them would inevitably disrupt the democratic process and distort its character, since the unavoidable result would be that those who control the money would also control public opinion and, consequently, political power, with all that entails. There can be no more serious distortion of the principles of a democratic system in an enlightened society."
From challenging election results to overturning them
If law enforcement authorities determine that the information provides sufficient grounds to open an investigation, and such an investigation is launched, the central question will be what evidence investigators uncover.
Beyond the criminal process, which could involve an investigation, indictment and trial, authorities would also need to consider whether any offenses affected the integrity of the election and, if so, to what extent.
Claims that electoral violations influenced the results, potentially warranting their annulment, would be considered separately from criminal proceedings.
Under Israel's election law, the results of a parliamentary election can be challenged through an appeal heard by the Jerusalem District Court.
Such an appeal is entirely independent of any criminal investigation or prosecution. The court can consider allegations of election bribery even if no criminal proceedings have been initiated.
Political parties and the attorney general are authorized to file such appeals.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara
(Photo: Amit Shabi)
The law generally allows just two weeks after an election to submit an appeal, although the court may extend that deadline if it provides reasons for doing so. In the current circumstances, the need to examine allegations of foreign interference could potentially justify an extension.
Under the law, a panel of three Jerusalem District Court judges would hear the appeal.
One possible argument would be that "the election as a whole or voting at a particular polling station was not conducted in accordance with the law."
Another provision allows an appeal on the grounds that "votes cast for a particular list of candidates were obtained unlawfully," provided that the alleged irregularity could have affected the election results.
This requirement is particularly significant: Establishing that an election offense occurred would not, by itself, necessarily be sufficient to overturn the results. The court would also have to consider whether the violation was capable of influencing the outcome.
If an investigation by police and the Shin Bet substantiates Sohlberg's suspicions of election bribery involving a foreign state, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara would have to consider whether to challenge the election results and how broadly such an appeal should be framed.
Once an appeal is filed, the court would examine the evidence presented and determine whether it establishes violations of election law.
If the judges conclude that offenses were committed, they would then have to decide what consequences those violations should carry.
The Knesset Elections Law provides that "the court may annul the election in its entirety or at a particular polling station and order a new election to be held on a date it determines."
The broader the violations and the greater their impact on electoral integrity, the more extensive the remedy the court could consider.
Could Israel actually hold another election?
An Israeli court has never ordered the annulment of a nationwide parliamentary election, and such an outcome appears unlikely in this case as well.
However, if investigators uncover violations of election law, such as bribery, and those offenses can be traced to a specific geographic area or individual polling stations, the Jerusalem District Court could annul the results only in those locations.
It could then order voting to be repeated at the affected polling stations or in the relevant area, rather than requiring the entire country to return to the polls.
The distinction is important because the legal response would depend not simply on whether wrongdoing occurred, but on its scope and potential effect on the election results.
In any event, Israeli law explicitly provides that an election appeal does not suspend the work of the newly elected Knesset.
An appeal under the relevant provision does not delay parliamentary proceedings, and its outcome does not undermine the legality of decisions already made by the legislature.
That means the 26th Knesset can begin its work as scheduled, even while allegations of foreign interference are investigated and any subsequent legal challenges are considered.