Everyone expects the inauguration of Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon, one of the most controversial Israeli politicians and generals, to bring changes to the region. Sharon has a history of stealing the spotlight in the Middle East, sometimes at gunpoint, and it would be hard to imagine the right-wing firebrand keeping a low profile.

But what can we really expect now that the "unelectable" Sharon is in charge? This is, apparently, the ten-million shekel question right now, but there are a few easy answers I think we can rule out.

One thing that will not be affected, at least not immediately or directly, is the peace process. The last four months of violence have proven, to the extent that there is any dialogue about peace left to speak of, that Israeli politicians' roles are largely irrelevant to Yasser Arafat's conversation. If Ehud Barak could not say anything to bring his Palestinian counterparts closer to a final peace deal, or at least end the violence on the ground, there is no reason to expect Sharon's defiant rhetoric to have a greater effect.

Barak's failure, even after months of continued concessions and daily offers of sweeter deals, finally discredited the activists in Israel's peace camp. Palestinians insist that Israel cannot dictate peace terms to them until they're good and ready, and the boycott of the recent elections by Israeli Arabs reinforced the message that, from the Palestinian perspective, nothing Israel does will affect their position. By denying any significant difference between Sharon and Barak, as Arafat seemed to do in his rancorous election-eve speech in Davos, Switzerland, the Palestinians are guaranteeing that the current situation of violence and gridlock will continue, at least for the forseeable future.

No Israeli, not even Sharon, can say anything that will change their mind.

A more interesting question raised by Sharon's election is the future of domestic politics and the prospects for rebuilding Israeli national unity. William Safire, who brags that his pal Arik called him first after his victory speech, says Sharon's rise to power signals a "reinvigoration of Zionism." In today's "post-Zionist" world, can Sharon, a greying relic of a bygone era, really revive Israel's national spirit?

Indeed, "post-Zionism" has become the root of all evil in the rhetoric of the Israeli right. As Israelis weary of sending generation after generation of their children into wars which not even the most decisive military victory can end, they have lost the will to continue the Jewish national struggle and are more inclined to concede the country's most fundamental values, like control over the Temple Mount, for the sake of peace--and quiet. Or at least, so say Safire and his right-wing chums, who take "peacemonger" as a much stronger insult than "warmonger."

In fact, there are many reasons Israelis voted for Sharon, but a resurgence of the national will-to-fight is not one of them. If anything, it was the violence brought on by Barak's policies that elected Sharon, whose toughness Israelis hope will bring some measure of deterrence and security. Israel is not ready to give up on peace and mobilize for war, in part because most Israelis realize that the current situation is far too complex for the kind of heady nationalism that unified the country in common struggle in its first 30 years after independence.