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.

Yet such a mobilization seems to be the goal of the chorus of commentators calling on Barak's left-wing Labor party to join Sharon's Likud in a "national unity" government. In a time of crisis, they argue, it is better for Jews to stand together to face their enemies. There is no room for political opposition in a time of war.

This argument goes too far, I think, in its cynicism about the current plight of Israel. Although the Intifada is making life extremely stressful and increasing the personal insecurity of Israelis, the country is under no real military threat. A unity government comprising Labor and Likud would shut down the internal discourse on peace within Israel, reinforcing the Palestinians in their belief that there is no real difference between the two sides.

It would be far better for Labor to stay outside the government as a conscientious opposition, continuing to search for a way to make peace even when the circumstances seem forbidding. By dropping the idea of "national unity" and letting the Likud form a coalition with the religious parties Labor will retain the flexibility to criticize the government's position on peace. Joining Sharon after his landslide electoral victory will not allow leftists to "moderate" Sharon's policies, as some have suggested, but simply relieve him of the need to respond to criticism from the peace camp.

A Jewish state needs democratic discourse and strong political opposition. Unfortunately, the Palestinian conflict has drawn attention away from challenges and issues--including the secular-religious divide and the socioeconomic status of the Arabs and Jewish immigrants--which are the real stumbling blocks to Israeli national unity. If Sharon executes his campaign pledge to end the single-minded obsession with formal peace talks that characterized Barak's government, a policy which would obviate the need for a unity government, then perhaps some of these pressing domestic issues can finally be addressed.

Mending Israel's internal divisions--achieving true, not artificial, national unity--is the only way to bring about a new era of post-post-Zionism.

Eran A. Mukamel '01 is a physics concentrator in Quincy House.