Israel has once again begun electing a government, and its domestic politics have taken center stage in the region. But from the Palestinian and Arab point of view, the results of that election will change little; indeed, PNS commentator Rami Khouri thinks the only hope is high-level, and secret, diplomacy. Khouri, a Palestinian-Jordanian, is a syndicated political columnist, author, and television talk show host.

For the moment, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's resignation and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that he will contest the upcoming elections have shifted attention in Israel and Palestine to domestic Israeli politics. Whatever the outcome, it offers little hope for peace.

As the campaign begins, armed clashes between Israelis and Palestinians continue and there are both secret and public attempts to resume negotiations for a final peace accord.

The dominant view in the Arab world sees no significant differences between Barak and Netanyahu, or between Labor and Likud with regard to peace-making with the Palestinians. Barak's and other Labor-led Israeli governments have acted very much like Likud-led governments in the areas of concern to Palestinians and Arabs -- continued expansion of Jewish settlements in lands occupied in 1967, confiscation of Palestinian lands, arrests in and closures of Palestinian self-rule areas, Israel's strong military response to the Palestinian resistance, and Israel's position on such issues as refugees and Jerusalem.

If Labor and Likud differ in their approaches to peace-making it is more in terms of style than substance -- yet even this is diminishing to near-insignificance.

This narrowing of the differences between Likud and Labor reflects the fact that a consistent majority of Israelis want a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. Barak did offer more than a Likud government would, but his best offer remains far less than the Palestinians can accept -- and far less than what the Arabs believe Israel should do under international law and UN resolutions.

Palestinians are battling a powerful Zionist ideology that is implemented by an equally strong military machine. Most Israelis express a sense of being besieged, of once again fighting politically and militarily for their sheer survival, as they did in 1948.

In such a context, domestic ideological differences on both sides are giving way to broader areas of consensus within both camps. These can be seen in identical accusations.

Israelis charge that the ruling political elite in Palestine shares the desire of Islamist and leftist Palestinians to eliminate Israel's existence. Palestinians accuse the Israeli leaders of sharing the common goal of perpetuating Israel's dominance of Palestinians, preventing the birth of a viable Palestinian state, rejecting Palestinian refugees' right of return, and preserving most Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. (Indeed, Barak launched his electoral campaign last week by saying that 80 percent of the Jewish settlers should stay where they are under the terms of a permanent peace accord).

Both sides are driven by fear and by the will to defend themselves politically and militarily. This leaves little scope for those who seek negotiations that would equally give Israelis and Palestinians their legitimate national rights and aspirations.

Thus the elections in Israel are unlikely to generate any meaningful new breakthroughs for peace-making. Instead, they will probably accentuate the moves by Israel's Right and Left toward a common position that promises to use military force to quell the Palestinian uprising, and to compel Palestinians to accept Israel's best offer.

Palestinian positions will harden in response, so they will probably continue to endure prolonged, low-intensity warfare in Israel and Palestine, as both sides defend themselves through killing -- and demoning the other.

Israelis and Palestinians have both demonstrated a powerful will to survive and to achieve their national rights. International diplomatic intervention, unilateral capitulation, or a clear victory by either side are unlikely to occur.

The best hope in this situation is for the Barak and Arafat leaderships to muster the rare qualities of statesmanship. They must recognize that the only way out of this violent, vicious cycle is for both peoples to accept that both have legitimate rights to viable statehood and real security.