As often seems to be the case, the exit polls were wrong. The shock of Hamas' Palestinian parliamentary election win is one of those events, scarcely anticipated, even yesterday, that will nevertheless rebound with hard-to-guess consquences.
Central to it all is Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel. Without that, the US will not recognise the Palestinian Authority government. That means a peace process that has always relied on the influence and committment of outsiders (the roadmap is backed by the US, EU, UN and Russia) is effectively finished.
Then there is the role of the EU, which is the Palestinian Authority's biggest donor. Like the US, it designates Hamas a terrorist organisation. If Hamas does not do something to make it think otherwise (declaring an end to violence against Israel) it is hard to see how Brussels and the 25 national governments can continue to offer its support. That would leave the Palestinians short of cash and isolated.
Next come internal Israeli and Palestinian politics.
Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli PM, has refused to deal with a Hamas government until the group disarms and recognises its right to exist - but his hold on office could be threatened if hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu becomes a more attractive leader when Israelis vote in March on their post-Sharon future. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, President Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader, might resign if he decides he cannot work with a Hamas prime minister and cabinet.
The Palestinians did not specifically vote for any of this. The Hamas win was largely a result of disenchantment with Fatah, and its internal divisions and failure to clamp down on corruption. Fatah's response appears to be to get out of government as fast as they can and let Hamas make mistakes. Ziyad Abu Ein, a party official, told Reuters that Hamas should "alone bear its responsibilities, if it can".
Finally comes the role of democracy in the Middle East. In the 1990s, there was talk of "one man, one vote, one time" for Islamist parties without a strong committment to democratic parties. That appears to have faded as a concern but George Bush's pledge to promote democracy in the Middle East (which should be no bad thing) looks to be running into unforseen obstacles if, rather than acting as a moderating influence, it is bringing extremists into power.
The hardest-to-guess consequence is what impact political power will have on Hamas. Will it split into one wing that recognises Israel and another that wants to destroy it? Will the realities of government tarnish the promises it offered the electorate, as happens to almost all political parties that win power? The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Ewen MacAskill argues the election could speed up a necessary politicisation of the Middle East conflict.
One thing is certain: Israeli-Palestinian relations are much changed, and much more complicated, now the election results have shown up the errors in the exit polls.
