The victory of Ehud Olmert and the Kadima party last night in the Israeli general election was widely predicted but that does not make it any less extraordinary. To form a new political movement from scratch in a mature democracy is an extremely difficult enterprise. To have the founder and dominant personality of the party fall into a deep coma, as Ariel Sharon did in early January, could easily have destroyed the experiment. Furthermore, when the Palestinian election produced the extreme result of a Hamas victory, many thought that the Israeli electorate would react by lurching back to Likud, led by the unpredictable Binyamin Netanyahu. It has not done so.

In large part the credit must go to Mr Olmert. He has handled his role as the acting Prime Minister with dignity and skill. Although a familiar figure to many Israelis as a former Mayor of Jerusalem, he had not been tested at such a senior level. He does not have the unique military history and authority of Mr Sharon, but has managed to strike the right balance in word and deed in his dealings with the Palestinians and other regional leaders. He has proved a shrewd individual and has not permitted others, such as the eternal political loser Shimon Peres, to define his party. Most of Israel’s neighbours will privately welcome his win even if they publicly dismiss it.

It is the voters, though, who deserve most of the plaudits. Although Israel has enjoyed an admirably robust democratic tradition for almost 60 years, many voters, mainly hailing from Russia, have much less experience of the ballot box. They were courted with the false promise of economic populism by Labour and with an implausible pledge of absolute security by Likud. They have instead decided to place most power in the hands of a prime minister at the helm of a fledgeling organisation that has made gritty realism its watchword. Mr Olmert has said little in this campaign that might return to haunt him.

The task of forming a government in Israel is never easy — even when, as in this instance, the numbers of horses that need to be traded is not likely to be excessive. Mr Olmert needs to make clear that he will con-tinue on the path of economic liberalisation at home (Mr Netanyahu, despite his other faults, set a splendid precedent as Finance Minister) and be willing to engage in a dialogue with a Palestinian Authority that recognises Israel and is ready to enter into meaningful talks and not a theocratic rant.

The unfortunate truth is that such a discussion may be some time coming. Mr Olmert is correct to contend that he cannot allow progress to be contingent on the stance adopted by Hamas. Just as Mr Sharon decided on unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, his successor appreciates that many West Bank settlements are politically and practically indefensible. He must be bold where he can and if the reply is a wave of terror attacks, the international community must not be ambiguous in its sympathies. Israel has made a sound choice. It can only be hoped that others will now respond in kind.