Not everything that angers the majority is beyond the boundaries of democracy

The opinion piece argues that extreme or outrageous political positions, as long as they are legal, are legitimate in the democratic arena. The article defends the right of Arab politician Sami Abu Shahada to present a Palestinian national vision, and warns against creating a double standard of legitimacy for Arab politics versus Jewish nationalism.

The opinion piece by Hussam Abu Bakr on ynet argues that political positions that anger the majority are not necessarily illegitimate in a democracy. The article focuses on the case of Sami Abu Shahada, a Balad politician who holds sharp Palestinian national positions, including the concept of a 'state of all its citizens', opposition to Israel's definition as a Jewish state, and criticism of Zionism. The writer cites the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned the disqualification of Balad, and states that an outrageous position is not necessarily prohibited. The article compares the legitimacy of sharp Jewish nationalism in the political arena to the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism, and warns against 'conditional political citizenship' for Arabs. The writer acknowledges that the article published by Abu Shahada on October 8, 2023, is a separate case at the center of a legal debate, but states that it should not be used as a tool to blur the distinction between that statement and his overall worldview.