At least two points seemed worth mentioning in the Times's coverage of the Israeli election.
First, the front-page news article reports, "The results were a blow to the prime minister, whose aggressive push to expand Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank has led to international condemnation and strained relations with Washington." This is an odd formulation on several fronts. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and it's not entirely clear that building homes in a national capital city should count as "settlements." The description of the settlement push as "aggressive" is an opinion. It's just as plausible to characterize the building not as "aggressive" but as "defensive." Also, for ten months of Netanyahu's administration a settlement "freeze" was in place. That was a freeze, not an aggressive expansion. Finally, even by the count of the left-wing Israeli group Peace Now, Mr. Netanyahu's government approved 6,676 settler housing units in 2012. That wasn't construction, just approval. And for a country of 6 million Jews, many with rapidly expanding large families, it can seem like a small number, not a large one.
Second, the front-page news article and Thomas Friedman's op-ed page column offer opposing interpretations of the election results. The Friedman column says, "Israel's election on Tuesday showed that the peace camp in Israel is still alive and significant." The news article, on the other hand, says "it was the center, led by the political novice Yair Lapid, 49, that emerged newly invigorated...Mr. Lapid...avoided antagonizing the right, having not emphasized traditional issues of the left, like the peace process. Like a large majority of the Israeli public, he supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is skeptical of the Palestinian leadership's willingness to negotiate seriously; he has called for a return to peace talks but has not made it a priority."