While noting his concerns about the racist and ant-Semitic roots of Austria’s Freedom party, which is now part of the county’s governing coalition, Daniel Pipes urges Jews to work with the party, not against it:

The [current Austrian] government comprises two very different parties, which together won 58 percent of the vote: the arch-establishment and very mildly conservative Austrian People’s party and the populist, firebrand Freedom party of Austria, whose roots lie in the far-right swamp of German (not Austrian) nationalism.

The two parties’ coalition agreement is an anti-jihadists’ dream. Distinguishing between Islamism (which it calls political Islam) and the religion of Islam, it boldly stakes out new ground. . . .

Those hostile to the Freedom party stress its Nazi origins, its “politics of resentment,” and its anti-Western outlook. . . . My assessment: the Freedom party brings realism, courage, extremism, and eccentricity; it has a way to go before it becomes just another party. Its leadership’s efforts to address a problem like anti-Semitism (visiting Yad Vashem or calling for the Austrian embassy to be moved to Jerusalem) have gone down badly among rank-and-file members.

But I advocate working with the Freedom party, not marginalizing it. . . . [A] political party has no DNA or essence; it can change and be what its members make of it. Note, [for instance], how the U.S. Democratic party changed on the race issue.

Here at Mosaic, we’ve published quite a lot about many Arab states, but one that’s barely received mention is Oman, located at the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula. The sultanate has stayed out of the recent conflicts of the Midde East, and is known to have sub-rosa relations with Israel; high-ranking Israeli officials have visited the country clandestinely, or at least with little fanfare. For precisely this reason, Oman has held itself out as an intermediary and host for negotiations. The then-secret talks that proceeded the Obama administration’s fateful nuclear negotiations with Iran took place in Oman. Ari Heistein explains the similar, and troubling, role Muscat is playing with regard to the Houthis in neighboring Yemen:

For more than three decades, Oman has served in the role of mediator for the resolution of disputes in Yemen. . . . Oman allows for a Houthi office in the capital, Muscat, reportedly numbering around 100 personnel, to operate from its territory for the purported function of diplomatic engagement. It is worth asking why the Houthis require such a large delegation for such limited engagement and whether there is any real value to engaging with the Houthis.

Thus far, efforts to negotiate with the Houthis have yielded very limited outcomes, primarily resulting in concessions from the Saudi-led coalition and partial de-escalation when it has served the terror group’s interests. Rarely, if ever, have the Houthis fully abided by their commitments after signing off on international agreements. Presumably, such meager results could have been achieved through other constellations that are less beneficial to the recently redesignated foreign terrorist organization.

In contrast, the malign and destabilizing Houthi activities in Oman are significant. They include: shipment of Iranian and Chinese weapons components [and] military-grade communications equipment via Oman to the Houthis; the smuggling of senior officials in and out of Houthi-controlled areas via Oman; and financial activities conducted by Houthi shell corporations to consolidate the regime’s control over Yemen’s economy and subsidize the regime.

With this in mind, there is good reason to suspect that the Houthi presence in Oman does more harm than good.