Fatah was still tainted with the corruption of the Arafat era. The main alternative was Hamas, a terrorist organization that also had a well-organized political apparatus. I supported the elections. Whatever the outcome, free and fair elections reveal the truth.
In Jan. 2006, the truth was that Palestinians were tired of Fatah's corruption. Hamas won 74 of 132 seats. Some interpreted the results as a setback for peace. I wasn't so sure. Hamas had run on a platform of clean government and efficient publi service, not war with Israel.Maybe so, but its Charter makes its intentions perfectly plain: the destruction of the impudent, wicked Zionist entity as both raison d'etre and ultimate goal.
Equally delusion: the New York Times. In today's paper you can read this re Egypt's "historic" elections:
In interviews, many Egyptians were already looking past the election, which will take place in stages over the next few months. Some said they feared its failure could give the military an excuse to keep power, perhaps under a reshuffled council.
But others argued that even a flawed election would lend the Parliament more legitimacy than street protesters could muster against the power of the military council, and the very act of voting would carry Egypt one step further from dictatorship and closer to democracy.
It can't; it won't. To suggest that is could or would is as irrational/delusional as hoping against hope and all common sense that Hamas will amend its ways and drop its genocidal plans once--no, because--the trappings of democracy have brought it to power.