Now, however, that's no longer an option. The election has happened. It may be that there will be another election sooner than one might think, but that wouldn't be out of anyone's choice - it would be because the coalition building has stymied.
So Lieberman, for instance, will not be thinking of how best to increase his Knesset seats now; he'll be thinking of how best to gain influence with a coalition partner. Netanyahu won't be dreaming of a thundering performance if the country went to the polls; he'll know that, in the most propitious circumstances, he could still only manage to get more-or-less the same number of seats as Kadima.
And that leads to the second flawed - perhaps - assumption: that Lieberman will jump on board with Netanyahu. Politically, it is said, the two are more natural allies than Lieberman and Livni.
I'd say there are two things wrong with that.
First, Kadima is hardly a free standing party that came out of nowhere. Until Sharon's plan to pull out of Gaza led to a split, Kadima was Likud (or rather, its MKs were, in the main, Likud MKs). And the idea that - this is the BBC's take - Livni and Netanyahu are poles apart on the idea of a Palestinian state is simply wrong. Livni has called explicitly for one, given the right circumstances. But Netanyahu has never, at any point, ruled one out. To do that would put him at the extreme lunatic wing of Israeli politics - even Lieberman doesn't rule it out. All Natanyahu has done is use far more cautious and wary language than Livni, and criticise the pullout from Gaza.
But if President Obama is able - and I happen to think this is fantasy politics, but let's think about it as a possibility - to secure the circumstances under which Israel is securely protected and the PA is able to deliver its side of any bargain, then Netanyahu would sign up tomorrow. So would any mainstream Israeli.
What else is wrong with the idea of Leiberman and Netanyahu falling into bed together so easily?
Lieberman. Let's not forget that, while he might have been Netanyahu's chief of staff once, so too he was Deputy PM under Olmert until he pulled out of the coalition because of the religious parties. For a man who presents himself as the outsider, he's the ultimate insider. And he's also, as his party's trajectory shows, a consummate strategist. And that's why I think a coalition with Kadima might suit him better. At some point, the next government will fall apart; that's what Israeli governments do. And the chances are it will be because Lieberman walks out. So the medium term issue for him is in what circumstances his departure will increase, rather than diminish, his party's support.
Surely that would come if he leaves a Kadima-led coalition, when some will have thought him an unlikely members in the first place, rather than a Likud-led government, which many think him a natural member. Were he to support Livni, he could not only claim to have the national interest at heart, giving the leader who secured the greatest number of seats a chance to govern; he could then, on leaving, claim the moral high ground, rather than if leaving a Likud government.
I'm not saying any of this will happen - just that we should remember that whatever the received wisdom, there's another way of looking at last night's results.
UPDATE Daniel Finkelstein puts it in perspective:
I think there will only be peace when the Palestinians decide they are willing to live with a Jewish homeland. There could have been peace in 1947 if they had been willing to accept it. I understand why they did not, why they felt as they did. But there can't be peace until they agree to allow Israel to exist. There can't be peace, not ever.
The moment that the Palestinians are willing to accept Israel's existence I believe that almost any deal is possible. And almost any Israeli government will be forced by democratic sentiment to negotiate it.
Until then, any Israeli leadership will need to protect the country's security. And will do so strongly, whatever its complexion.
Who emerges as the new head of Israel's government is therefore beside the point.
