In the wake of the Israeli elections, Doaa El-Bey failed to find any sign that peace will follow Writers cast doubt over any changes in Israeli policies regarding the Palestinian issue under the new Israeli government regardless of who forms it or its composition. Instead, it is a chance for the Palestinians to revise their options. The Israeli elections led to the rise of the right and the national and religious extremist right at the expense of the left. Regardless of the results, there are questions that Maged Kayali raised -- should the Palestinians stick to the option of negotiations as the only option, and if not, what are the other options available? For some time it has been clear that the settlement that the Palestinians are after which includes the establishment of a Palestinian state and the resolution of the issue of refugees, is not in Israel's plans at all. And now, as Kayali explains, the Palestinians find themselves again forced to deal with a rightist Israeli government that openly calls for giving up "land for peace" and works for the principle "peace for peace". In such light, Palestinians should review their political options rather than stick to the one and only option of negotiation. They can keep negotiating as the first option, but that would be more costly because it will exacerbate Palestinian divisions, weaken the Palestinian Authority and give Israel more power and time to build settlements and apartheid walls. The second option is the establishment of one secularist democratic state (one nation, two peoples). Although that is the best solution, it would keep the conflict over the future of a Palestinian state and the Zionist project ongoing. Dissolving the PA is the third option that would end its authority to negotiate. In the absence of the PA, Israel would be forced to resume its responsibility as an occupying state and face two options: either remain a racist and undemocratic state or end its status as a Zionist state and accept the solution of one nation, two peoples. There are other options that would require regional involvement and that is what Israel is after as Kayali concluded in the London-based independent daily Al-Hayat. The Syrian political daily Tishreen pointed to a fact, which some analysts are trying to ignore, that the victory of the extremists in the Israeli elections would lead to more aggression and extremism in the region. However, the newspaper's editorial ruled out any change in the Israeli strategy as all the leaders of Israel unite for one target: the Zionist project. All Israeli parties, whether they rule or not, have not differed on the project but on the tactics to execute it. "Israeli policies have never changed, at least not in content, with the change of leading figures. The manoeuvres that these leaders adopted in dealing with the peace process were obvious. And the proof is the deteriorating Palestinian situation which has not benefited from any peace agreement concluded," the edit read. Given that extremism and aggressiveness are the two major characteristics of Israeli behaviour, the editorial called on the Arab nation to spread the culture of resistance and unite its ranks. In other words, the Arab world should depend on itself and not bank on the winner of the Israeli elections. Nawaf Al-Zaru wrote that all the lights are on the newcomer in the Israeli political scene. But the question is what the agenda of the new government is and what are the possibilities for a political settlement in the Palestinian file. Al-Zaru wrote that it was useful to remember that the leaders of the three main parties that won the election are originally from the rightist Likud Party. Netanyahu is the Likud leader, Livni broke from the Likud and Lieberman used to work with Netanyahu when he was prime minister. Even Barak, who does not belong to the right, is the leader of the latest holocaust against Gaza. Thus, as Zaru continued, any of the four who are likely to rule in the next government espouse the same political and strategic agendas, especially regarding the Palestinian issue. The writer disagreed with some Palestinian commentators who said the peace process could continue if Livni heads the government. Al-Zaru said whoever took part in the aggressive war against Gaza -- like Livni -- cannot speak about peace. Whoever gave the order to use white phosphorous against civilians, destroy more that 25,000 houses and Gaza's infrastructure cannot speak about the two-state solution under which the two states will live in peace next to each other. "No matter which party governs Israel, it will never change its code: 'kill as many Arabs as you can and talk about peace as much as you can'," Al-Zaru wrote in the United Arab Emirates political daily Al-Bayan. Mahmoud Abul-Haygaa wrote that some commentators claim that the future of the peace process is grim because the right has come to power in Israel. He added satirically that it was never promising under the leftist governments. Abul-Haygaa agreed with Al-Zaru that the Israeli expansionist and occupation policy has never changed. On the contrary, it has witnessed continuous escalation aimed at crushing Palestinian steadfastness and resistance. In order to avoid extremist thinking, the writer added, he would say that the Israeli anti-peace policies emerged clearly after the death of Yitzhak Rabin. Before Rabin's death, the peace process was promising. But after his death, it was subject to Israeli setbacks until Ariel Sharon nearly ended it by putting Yasser Arafat under siege and claiming there was no Palestinian partner for peace talks. Although that claim was later nullified, we still witness more Israeli settlements and aggression against Palestinians but no peace. The situation further deteriorated by inter-Palestinian division and conflict. "However, instead of saying the future of the peace process is grim, we should be saying there is no Israeli partner to talk to about peace. And until there is one, we should look for other options to achieve peace," Abul- Haygaa added in the Palestinian political daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. Buthayna Shaaban wrote that the results of the elections clearly showed the racist extremist face of Israel which she called the Frankenstein of the new Middle East. The poll conspicuously showed the extent of Israeli political and structural enmity for the Arabs and the Zionist determination to ethnically cleanse them. That strategy was clear in their continuous attempts to kill, and forcefully displace the Palestinians throughout the past 60 years, including striking their houses and mosques, scorching their lands and judaising Jerusalem. What happened in Gaza is a continuation of their policy. The only difference is the use of more sophisticated weaponry. Although she regarded the worldwide calls to try Israel for committing war crimes in Gaza as a victory, Shaaban wrote in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat that Palestinians and the region are in need of a fair conference in which the participants would adopt a firm stand to deter Zionist terrorism that has been committing ferocious practices to cleanse the Palestinians for the past 60 years.
