THE confirmation of Mr Benjamin Netanyahu as the prime minister elect of Israel has totally transformed the situation in the Middle East. While Israeli rightwingers celebrated in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel's Arab partners in the peace process were dumb and despondent.
Since Mr Netanyahu has said he would redesign the peace process to offer the Arabs "peace for peace" rather than "land for peace", Arab rulers who signed agreements with Israel wonder if they can rely on it to honour its international commitments.
These rulers also feel let down by the United States which as sponsor of the peace process, did nothing to force the pace while the outgoing Prime Minister, Mr Shimon Peres, was in power.
Arab Ieaders who join the Middle East peace process in 1991 also placed themselves and their countries beneath the protective umbrella of a regional "pax Americana". This promised "a peace of the pen" which Washington claimed, would eventually constitute a comprehensive regional settlement.
The basis of this settlement, the US said, was the "land for peace" formula laid down in Security Council Resolution 242.
Furthermore, US peace policy was a bipartisan affair, initiated by the former Republican administration and pursued by the Democratic incumbent in the "White House, Mr Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State, Mr "Warren Christopher.
Their firm commitment to advancing the peace process provided the positive psychological atmosphere for overt military cooperation between the Arabs and the US.
Thus, pax Americana was manifested on a material plane through a series of wide ranging defence agreements involving the pre-positioning of US troops and weaponry in Saudi Arabia, several Gulf states and, recently, agreements also produced highly lucrative arms deals with US manufacturers for a range of advanced weaponry.
These agreements and the US military presence on the Islamic holy ground of the Arabian peninsula depended on the goodwill of the populace, which would be forthcoming only as long as the Arabs believed peace with Israel was a firm prospect.
Without that prospect, Arab alliances with Washington become suspect because Israel remains the regional "strategic partner" of the US. And Israel, whether governed by Labour or Likud, is still the enemy of the Arabs.
Mr Netanyahu's pledge to change" the peace process, and the likelihood of at least four former hard line generals being appointed to his government, cannot but change Arab perceptions of Israel's intentions.
The former generals expected to be in the cabinet are Mr Ariel Sharon, the defence minister who in 1982 invaded Lebanon and occupied Beirut his chief of staff, Mr Rafael Eitan Mr Yitzak Mordechai, former head of Northern Command, and Mr Avigdor Kahalani, who broke with Labour for proposing concessions to Syria on the Golan.
The fifth general rumoured to be a candidate for the Likud government is the outgoing Labour Foreign Minister, Mr Ehud Balrak, lately chief of staff.
The presence of these military men in the cabinet and the absence of a Likud peace policy acceptable to the Arabs could convey the message that Israel intended to impose a "peace of the sword" on its much weaker neighbours rather than negotiate the promised "peace of the pen".
This "peace of the sword", pax Judaica, would undermine pax Americana and put in jeopardy the thrones of Arab rulers who have relied on the US to secure an equitable political settlement between Arabs and the Jewish state.
