Yes but in the lefty worldview, we know that if you are prepared to treat anyone badly in response to their democratic choice (except for the Jews, natch), it means you are opposed to democracy. Even if they elect genocidal rejectionist fanatics who campaign on an explicit platform of rejectionism and terrorism.
It is unfortunately a view that has historically crossed all lines of political leaning, favouring one leaning in prominence more than another by depending on whatever is or was fashionable at any time.
As such the argument for rejecting the outcome of another people's democratically conducted elections is nothing new and not exclusively reserved for any side of the political spectrum.
See US attitude on Chile's Allende, as just one example.
Which goes to show that individual cases need be seen as being just that individual, lumping them into just one pot of just one political lean being helpful not at all.
To wit: Equating the democratic election to power of the Nazis with the democratic election that brought Hamas to power, where showing a lot of similarities in what followed, is hardly helpful. Basically because alone the rejection of the first was hardly down to a lefty world view, even where the rejection of the second as being pseudo-fascist is today a view favored by many lefties.
At the end of the day the driving force for rejecting the results of either was down to the aftermath being unacceptable to the ambience most having to suffer it.
In the case of Hamas that ambience by now clearly including a large part of the electorate itself, any Gazans saying so however risking their lives. In the context of which another series of rockets lugged from there in an attempt to deflect from the population's discontent with leadership (currently over power cuts) would hardly be surprising, were it to happen.
As far as Israel rejecting the election outcome, reasons have already been covered and putting them down to being driven by fascistoid philosophy just because the current leadership isn't particularly positioned on the liberal side of the spectrum, is no more than a cheap op-out that conveniently precludes more in-depth analysis that might endanger dogmas held.
It's much easier to label a whole people as having become morally degenerate.
Having said all that, it is indeed fashionable today to take the traditional leftie role as having to be with the underdog. Of itself not a reprehensible stance at all but getting pretty stupid when closer examination of the particular dog is conveniently avoided in favor of protecting one's own political lean.
