The result was certainly not what the pundits predicted. It was Kadima led by Tzipi Livni and not Netanyahu and Likud that got the largest bloc in the Knesset. But Israel’s elections aren’t that simply and the pundits were only half-wrong. The victory was, alas, for the right-wing in Israel with an impressive showing for the neo-fascist Israel Is Our Country party that managed to get more votes than the Labour, a party that created Israel.

President Shimon Perez will soon enough ask Netanyahu to attempt to form a government and Bibi will be able to form a rightist bloc [though there is the slight possibility of a rotating Kadima-Likud government akin to that Labor-Likud power sharing in the 1980s].

What will a Netanyahu government, particularly if it includes the racist Avigdor Lieberman, mean for Israel/Palestine?

For starters it will mean the end of the already ineffective peace track with the Palestinians toward a two-state solution. Wit the prospect of a two-state solution, Israel’s Arabs will only grow justifiably less restless with the knowledge that Israel intends to subdue them eternally. Having Lieberman and his loyalty oath on board will only further antagonize Israeli Arabs.

This is what Israel-Palestinians expert Bernard Avishai writes about the prospect of a Netanyahu government:

“MY BET IS that Netanyahu will form a rightist government, take his chances with Washington, the collapse of relations with the PA, and riots among Israeli Arabs.

Brace yourselves.” Indeed.

But what is to happen if a two-state solution is no longer possible? Harvard professor Stephen Walt:

“But if a two-state option is no longer feasible, it seems likely that the United States would come to favor this third choice. After all, supporting option 2 — an apartheid state — is contrary to the core American values of freedom and democracy and would make the United States look especially hypocritical whenever it tried to present itself as a model for the rest of the world. Openly endorsing apartheid would also demolish any hope we might have of improving our image in the Arab and Islamic world. Lord knows I have plenty of respect for the Israel lobby’s ability to shape U.S. foreign policy, but even AIPAC and the other heavyweight institutions in the lobby would have great difficulty maintaining the “special relationship” if Israel was an apartheid state. By contrast, option 3 — a binational state that provided full democratic rights for citizens of all ethnic and religious backgrounds — is easy to reconcile with America’s own “melting pot” traditions and liberal political values. American politicians would find it a hard option to argue against.”

There is evidence that many Israelis and their supports themselves are starting to worry that a two-state solution is ending and that the world will soon start calling for a one-state solution, thus ending the Zionist dream. None other than Shimon Peres took to the pages of The Washington Post to decry the starting chatter about a one-state solution.

“There is no shortage of opinions when it comes to Middle East affairs, and the recent events in Gaza have not muted them. A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel’s legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. Having personally witnessed the remarkable progress we have made with the Palestinian Authority in recent years, I believe that a two-state solution is not only the best resolution to this age-old conflict but one within our reach.”

Maybe Peres is right that a two-state solution is still “within out reach.” Otherwise the chatter for a one-state will only grow louder. As Ali Abunimah, founder of the electronic intifidah, writes: “It’s fantastic that they had to roll out Peres in order to defend the two-state solution. They are on the defensive at this level and we have barely even started. It’s all crumbling.”