Israel Doesn’t Need More Political Parties, but Stability

Jan. 12 2021

Since the news broke that there would be a fourth national election in March, several new political parties have emerged in the Jewish state: for Likudniks dissatisfied with Benjamin Netanyahu, there is New Hope; for retirees, there is Vatikim (“old-timers”); for disaffected members of the centrist Yesh Atid, there is Tnufa, unless they want to join the revived Telem faction, or the Economics party. Meanwhile, the longstanding alliance between the ḥasidic and non-ḥasidic ḥaredi parties may be about to crumble. All this bodes ill for the Jewish state, write the editors of the Jerusalem Post:

[The erstwhile Labor politician Ron] Huldai launched a political party named the Israelis. . . . Cynically, although the party is set to run in the March 23 election, the seventy-six-year-old Huldai did not give up the job he has held for the last 22 years as mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. What does this say about his seriousness and his intentions should he be elected an ordinary back-bench Knesset member rather than receiving a cabinet position as he obviously desires?

The greater the number of parties running on a center-left platform [endorsed by Huldai and some other new parties], the smaller their chances of passing the electoral threshold. In this case, the votes will have been wasted instead of going to a bloc with a chance of having some influence and making an impact.

If would-be politicians cannot find their place in a current party and therefore decide to establish a list of their own, it does not bode well for their chances to work productively in a future Knesset and government. Having too many small parties creates political instability and makes it difficult for a government to be able to do what it is elected to do: govern. This opens the door to political blackmail, not democratic plurality.

Read more at Jerusalem Post

More about: Israeli Election 2021, Israeli politics

Kuwait Should Be the Next Country to Make Peace with Israel

Feb. 13 2025

Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seeks to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. But there are other Arab nations that might consider taking such a step. Ahmad Charai points to Kuwait—home to the Middle East’s largest U.S. army base and desperately in need of economic reform—as a good candidate. Kuwaitis haven’t forgiven Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein during his 1990 invasion, but their country has been more rhetorically hostile to Israel than its Gulf neighbors:

The Abraham Accords have reshaped Middle Eastern diplomacy. . . . Kuwait, however, remains hesitant due to internal political resistance. While full normalization may not be immediately feasible, the United States should encourage Kuwait to take gradual steps toward engagement, emphasizing how participation in regional cooperation does not equate to abandoning its historical positions.

Kuwait could use its influence to push for peace in the Middle East through diplomatic channels opened by engagement rather than isolation. The economic benefits of joining the broader framework of the Abraham Accords are overwhelming. Israel’s leadership in technology, agriculture, and water management presents valuable opportunities for Kuwait to enhance its infrastructure. Trade and investment flows would diversify the economy, providing new markets and business partnerships.

Kuwaiti youth, who are increasingly looking for opportunities beyond the public sector, could benefit from collaboration with advanced industries, fostering job creation and entrepreneurial growth. The UAE and Bahrain have already demonstrated how normalization with Israel can drive economic expansion while maintaining their respective geopolitical identities.

Read more at Jerusalem Strategic Tribune

More about: Abraham Accords, Kuwait