Two views are being canvassed about the man who has been elected prime minister of Israel, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. The optimistic view is that his political pragmatism, allied to his - formidable - campaigning, diplomatic and communications skills will make him more flexible in office than his campaign rhetoric would lead one to believe. The pessimistic view is that his rejection of key elements of the Israeli Palestinian agreements, his reliance on advice from hardliners and his impetuosity make the outlook for the Middle East bleak, possibly disastrous. It must be remembered, however, that the peace process originated under a Likud government led by Yitzhak Shamir after the end of the Gulf War. He had come to the negotiating table after pressure from a Republican administration in the US determined to capitalise on its triumph over Iraq. In the classical pattern of such conflicts compromises delivered by a right wing nationalist party may be more reliable and durable than those emanating from liberal or left wing political forces.
This was seen in the territorial concession Mr Shamir made to reach agreement with Egypt. Mr Netanyahu will now have to recognise similar international pressure, from the US, Europe and neighbouring Arab states as he inherits a process that will look very different in office than in opposition. His political skills could then be deployed to secure acceptance of whatever hard bargains emerge from negotiations.
But the new Prime Minister comes to power, assuming he can assemble a parliamentary majority, pledged to reject central elements of the process that is now well under way. He will not pull Israeli troops out of Hebron; he will beef up Israeli settlements in the West Bank; he will close down Orient House, the Palestinian headquarters in East Jerusalem; he describes Mr Yasser Arafat as a terrorist; he will refuse to discuss a divided Jerusalem or a Palestinian state; he will crack down hard on Hamas and Hizbullah.
Most important, he offers "peace for peace" - not land for peace in negotiations with Syria - a formula that state has categorically rejected and whose foreign minister said before the election would lead to war if Mr Netanyahu was elected. As they contemplate the outcome Arab leaders who have reached agreements with the outgoing government have good reason to ponder their credibility in the eyes of their own people.
They, and the rest of the international community which has such a deep stake in peace and stability in the Middle East, must insist that the progress made so far depends on Israel's good faith as a negotiating partner, rather than on the composition of changing and transient governments. If Mr Netanyahu sets out to reverse what has been already agreed or to alter the character of the peace process in a fundamental way, it could unravel swiftly and require even deeper involvement by the international community for years to come.