1. If Benyamin Netanyahu wins: By voting for Bibi, Israelis have turned their backs on peace.
This is a sweeping generalization about the Israeli public, which remains committed to a lasting peace based on a two-state solution. Since Oslo, governments run by Labor, Likud and Kadima have accepted this, differing only in how to approach the goal, not questioning its desirability.
It's worth noting that in 2001, the MSM demonized Ariel Sharon in a similar way, but by 2006, made a complete U-turn.
2. If Tzipi Livni wins: Livni and Barack Obama are the best hope for Mideast peace.
Whether or not this statement proves true remains to be seen. I'm more concerned that this dangerously raises expectations of Israel among Palestinians. Israel's relationship with the US is very important, but Livni's legacy as a peacemaker will ultimately hinge on the relationship she forges with a credible Palestinian leader, should one emerge.
3. If the results give Israel Beiteinu new political clout: Avigdor Lieberman is kingmaker because Israelis are racist.
Israel Beiteinu's surge in popularity and the intricacies of Israeli coalition politics indeed make Lieberman a likely kingmaker and a legitimate news story. The statement's fallacy is that a party expected to snag 15 percent of the Knesset suddenly represents Israel despite the other 85 percent who voted for anyone else.
4. If voter turnout is small: The winner has no legitimate mandate to govern.
In Israel's multi-party system, nobody gets an outright majority. And because Israelis have the right to not vote, newspapers can crunch the numbers in dramatic ways, like when The Guardian wrote in 2001:
Of 4.5m eligible Israeli voters, only 1.6m backed Mr Sharon. Should all Israelis be condemned by the minority's foolishness?
5. This election is The most crucial in Israeli history.
Big yawn. The press declared the same thing in 2006, 2003, 1996, 1992 . . .
