> So a very large team of international observer agreed that this election was fair and the results accurate. Why do you claim it wasn’t?

Because Hamas have physically killed all major opposition politicians prior to these elections.

> You are talking about the Ottoman Turks (not Arabs) who ruled Palestine between 1516 and 1914 (with some pauses in the 19th century).

No, I'm not. You clearly don't understand what Ottoman "rule" over this territory looked like, and using your intuition from modern nation states to inform you — which is incorrect. Ottomans have indeed had conquered this territory, but their de facto presence was almost non-existent, especially outside a couple of major cities. They even didn't bother to install any significant judicial system or common law — instead, every community was responsible for handling it's own affairs, which is the system that persists in modern Israel to present day.

So you’re gonna have to explain to me who the Arabs were that colonized Palestine in the 17th-19th century. And why that matters in relation to the current conflict. I don’t know whether the Ottoman Empire was a nation state or not (it obviously wasn’t; and I never claimed it was) has any bearing on the popularity of a resistance movement fighting a completely different occupying force.

> Because Hamas have physically killed all major opposition politicians prior to these elections.

The Palestinian Civil War (aka the Battle for Gaza) was after this election. The onset was much more complex then “Hamas killed all opposition”. But even if it was, this civil war had no effect on the election because it happened after it. If you are not referring the the civil war, which instances of political violence are you referring to? The dozens of international observers observing the election certainly didn’t see any? Were they all wrong? Is there some conspiracy we don’t know about?