The mantra that new parties fail, particularly centrist ones, is well known. This happened to the Pensioners Party in 2009. It theoretically could also happen to Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu.

An oft-overlooked reason for that is because new parties tend to be extremely focused on just one issue or one category of issues. For Assaf Shapira, it is worth distinguishing between their initial successes and why they tend to collapse.

"You need to distinguish between the short and the long run. In the short term, single-issue politics can help the party," Shapira, a researcher with the Israel Democracy Institute’s Political Reform Project, told Arutz Sheva.

That can provide an interesting set of circumstances where adding on positions to their platform can take away from opportunities to build a solid political base. But engagement in one issue will be a better way to hook voters on a serious issue.

"In addition, it is much easier to believe a party that successfully promotes only one subject rather than a longer list of issues," Shapira said.

These parties are perceived as transparent because there seems to be very little else to evaluate. With a focus on a single topic, it's merely the evaluation of that topic that people need to consider. 

What these parties run into is a vulnerability that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems to have exploited with Yesh Atid - if they do not reach their goals in the first term, they will be vulnerable to their electorate. 

"If it is not expanding and engaging in other areas, their target audience will be limited only to people interested in that one topic alone," Shapira explained.

"If they do not succeed in promoting their issue in a substantial way and fails to address it - which it will often do when constricted to a single term - the public will be disappointed and not vote for them again."

In other cases a position, or point, about a topic may become mute. That could be because the topic is less of a priority, or the issue is actually resolved.

"The experience in Israel teaches us that parties without a deep connection to the society at large or different sectors within it, then they won't survive, certainly as meaningful parties. A connection like this creates a loyal constituency even when the party faces a crisis."

That sort of connection could be built up with running for local elections as well as national. Shapira notes that Yisrael Beytenu and Shas do this well.

Parties, however, need to build up their infrastructure in order to have a center of gravity to where they may attract party members. Activities like primaries are also engaging and ensure that the party can become about more than just the charismatic leader who started it.

One idea Arutz Sheva asked Shapira about was initiating primaries in order to build enthusiasm for participation, but he says for such a new entity without a solid membership base, it can be extremely damning for the party's future.

"People only go to primaries every few years and the bulk of them are not active in the party beyond that. Members like this can flee the party quickly as happened with Kadima," he explained.

Shapira is referencing the Kadima primary in 2012 that saw Shaul Mofaz unseat Tzipi Livni, but those who rejected the result followed Livni into her own faction, Hatnua. Mofaz could not keep the party exhilarated, winning only two seats in 2013 and retiring obscurely before the last election.

"These primaries are also vulnerable to 'vote contractors' who solicit membership from people in order to manufacture votes for specific candidates," hence sullying the pristine image of a party into one that is corrupted, according to Shapira.

Israel’s Gauntlet of Flash-in-the-Pan Parties
Many of these parties tend to fall in the center of the political map, perhaps enhancing the difficulties in defining a wider platform that would anchor the party for the future.

"Centrists tend to be stuck between a given right-wing party and a given left-wing party, finding it hard to separate themselves from them. Also, the voters' connections themselves are weaker. We see this both in Israel and Europe," explained Shapira.

Additionally, people who land in the middle tend to be more flexible and more willing to retain their independence as voters and walk away from a party to vote for another one. If the halving of Yesh Atid votes (from 19 to 11) and performance of Kulanu (10) are any indication, many centrists might have proven this point in 2015.

Defense and security tend to also baffle these parties. Because emotions can ride high on these issues, parties tend to give definitive answers on their attitudes toward the use of force or certain defense policies. Trying to stay neutral for lack of a better option, centrists might go to the other issues as a safe harbor. This is happening in Yesh Atid and Kulanu (particularly the latter).

"I must say that in my opinion, and I think that this has been shown in the recent elections, the defense-security issue remains the central issue on the basis of which Israelis will vote. A large number of Likud voters are extremely critical of economic policy, yet voted Likud (again)," Shapira said.

That the current centrist parties have not set up local branches or activities definitely makes it more difficult, but Shapira emphasizes "as long as they don't formulate a clear alternative on this issue, they have very little chance of survival."