Read other letters about this article
So we have a real election for the Palestinians and they throw out the crooks and thugs that have been stealing them blind for the last 40 years - and that is a bad thing? And now the "revolutionaries" who love to parade and chat have to pick up the garbage and run the state. But now, they are responsible and have to accept the consequences of their actions and (overheated) rhetoric. Seems like a improvement to me.
Both sides are playing the rug market game now - staking out their positions so that they can bargain. "I won't talk to you if you don't change your ways" and "No dealing with the occupiers" Yawn. Give them time and they will find a formula to talk and get things done. It always works that way.
The fundamental point is that the only way that the Middle East is going to change is to empower the people in the region so that they can exercise some control. This has not happened for the last 50 years (or 50 centuries) and now things are starting to change as people realize that they do have a voice. It is not going to happen (as Mr. Cole seems to imply) by the munificent devolution of power from the ruling elite to the unwashed masses. It is happening because the idea of having a democracy is beginning to take hold in the region.
I just get so discouraged when the only perspective in an article seems to be generated by BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). I don’t remember the part where every short term event has to be “positive” to change the system for the better – sometimes you need movement in the opposite direction for a while to find the path through the maze. So now we have the snake devouring the rat, but in the long term maybe that will lead to a situation (to make the long winded analogy) where the crop isn’t eaten in the fields before it is grown. Maybe then we can end up improving the harvest (and the region)
Sometimes change may not be what you want - but that does not mean it can't be good.