Israel's general election was billed by the government and its rightwing opponents as a referendum on the ruling Kadima party's plan to impose Israel's final borders - borders never marked out before - by removing some Jewish settlers and pulling out of parts of the West Bank without talking to the Palestinians.
The Kadima leader and acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, wanted the voters to give him a mandate that would see off the right when it said he was pandering to terrorists and giving up land that God gave the Jews.
And he wanted the election to keep the left at bay when it said peace cannot be imposed and that Israel must find someone to talk to on the Palestinian side, even if Hamas is in power.
The results certainly crushed the hard right in parliament, which plagued Ariel Sharon and eventually drove him to leave Likud and launch Kadima. But they were not a firm embrace of unilateralism, the policy forged by Mr Sharon on the assertion that there is ‘no partner for peace on the Palestinian side’.
A few weeks ago the polls said Kadima would take 40 seats, more than twice as many as the leftwing Labour party. As it turned out Kadima won 28 seats and Labour 20, a result that could significantly affect Mr Olmert's plans.
‘Olmert won but with less vigour than he hoped,’ said Uri Dromi of the Israel Democracy Institute. ‘It was a mixed deal. He can say all those who voted for him - one in four - are for the unilateral approach, but what about the rest? One in four also voted for pulling out but through negotiations. On the right wing they voted against a pullout and didn't do so well.’
The result is likely to mean that Mr Olmert can carry forward his plans to remove about 70,000 settlers living on the other side of the vast West Bank barrier and other steps that the Palestinians will not complain about.
But it may also mean that dealing with the big issues - principally where Israel's final border runs and what happens to the sprawling settlement blocks that are home to more than 300,000 Jews living in the occupied territories - is a more complex affair within his own government than Mr Olmert expected.
First the prime minister has to put together a coalition administration and it is clear from the election that Israeli voters put a greater emphasis on social issues than in the past.
One explanation for the Labour party's relatively strong showing, and Kadima's failure to live up to expectations, is that voters knew that with Labour they could support withdrawal from the occupied territories while also making a statement about social priorities. The Labour leader, Amir Peretz, focused his campaign on the social cost of the government's monetarist economic policies with a promise to sharply raise the minimum wage and impose restraints on the ‘jungle’ of the free market economy. He is likely to insist on such policies as a condition for joining Mr Olmert's coalition.
‘If there's one clear voice it is that for the first time social issues are at least as important as security, and Olmert can't ignore this,’ Mr Dromi said. ‘What brought Peretz up to 20 seats are the social issues. Peretz will push this.’
Mr Peretz's priorities are likely to leave Mr Olmert with a free hand in the short term to carry through the removal of smaller Jewish settlements over the next year or two. But the Labour leader is understanding of the Palestinians and questioning of the idea of imposing borders. He has said it is not possible to talk to Hamas while it maintains its present posture, but it is probable that Hamas will adapt to the political reality and there are others in the Palestinian leadership to whom Israel could talk.
Some Labour leaders see the question as one of intent. So far Mr Olmert, like his predecessor, has found pretexts not to negotiate even when the Palestinians were begging for talks. In time, Mr Peretz is likely to press for the government to find ways to negotiate despite the obstacles.