Surviving in the "Graveyard of Empires"

"To sum up, the country hurts. The good news is that it can be overcome. The bad news is that it requires enormous amount of effort, and determination and focus. And there'll be a lot of resistance to it."- Afghan President Ashraf Ghani

This week, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani has been visiting top American officials to discuss the future of U.S.-Afghan relations.  His meetings have included such high ranking decision-makers as Defense Secretary Ash Carter and President Obama.  Ghani has been very adamant about his support for the continued involvement of the United States in Afghanistan's future.  Though Obama has been pushing for years to decrease America's direct involvement in Afghanistan, he announced on Tuesday to keep 9,800 troops in supporting roles through 2015 (the plan originally was to cut this number in half by 2016).  The war in Afghanistan was the longest continuous armed conflict in America's history (though some debate whether it really is over or not).  What has become of Afghanistan nearly 14 years after America's initial foray into the "graveyard of empires," and what is the outlook for its future?

Current Afghan President Ashraf Ghani

This history of Afghanistan (from a Western perspective) has always been that of a (pseudo) nation-state with strong tribal ties and a knack for being (unsuccessfully) invaded.  In the 1800s, the British and Russians fought over much of Central Asia in what became known as the Great Game.  This proved disastrous for both nations as the country's numerous factions and rough terrain made it very difficult to consolidate power over the Afghan people.  In 1979, the Soviet Union made this mistake again by invading the nation and sparking off the Soviet-Afghan War.  With a little help from the United States and Saudi Arabia, this action proved disastrous for the Soviets as well.  All of this has led to belief that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires."  Books such as Seth Jones' In The Graveyard of Empires have highlighted some of the many difficulties of consolidating power in this region, particularly in the American experience (this work in particular is very informative and has been quoted several times in the thesis linked above).  However, while it is highly likely the Soviet-Afghan War contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, numerous other factors also played a critical role.

When the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan in late 1989, it touched off a series of brutal civil wars, culminating in the rise to power of the Taliban.  Under the Taliban, life in Afghanistan deteriorated even more dramatically than it had during the years of civil war.  Its alliance with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda placed Afghanistan directly into conflict with the United States following the September 11th attacks.  In short, the United States invaded, overthrew the Taliban, uprooted the main arm of al-Qaeda, and installed a more pro-America government.  Under president Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's economy grew and infrastructure improved (thanks in large part to America's "nation building" strategy), but Afghan politics was often marred by controversy and claims of corruption. 

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai

So what does Afghanistan look like now?  Well, official "combat operations" ended late last year and the number of U.S. troops in the country is down to around 10,000 (from nearly 100,000 in mid-2011).  The remaining troops are essentially training Afghanistan's security forces to provide for their own security in a future without direct U.S. support. Additionally, Ashraf Ghani was elected to the presidency in 2014 under a platform of rooting out corruption, maintaining close ties to the United States, and starting a new round of peace talks with the remains of the Taliban.  Ghani has already taken some strong actions against alleged corruption in Afghanistan. Thus far. he has sentenced all the management of the Kabul Bank, who were held responsible for its collapse in 2010.  Ghani has also dismissed several high ranking government officials including the governor of Herat province Fazlullah Wahidi last December.  Thus far, Ghani has cultivated a much closer relationship with President Obama than his predecessor Hamid Karzai.

The country itself and its people have rebounded significantly from the days of the Taliban.  Since the U.S invasion, Afghanistan has built more roads, bridges, and schools than at any other time in its history.  Improvements in the education sector continue to be the strongest.  Education and infrastructure improvements have greatly increased the number of students attending school (from 800,000 in 2002 to 8.2 million in 2012, 40% of these being girls). During the reign of the Taliban, girls were not permitted to attend school or work.  Today, girls actually represent a higher percentage of students in school than boys in some urban provinces.  Likewise, Afghanistan's GDP has grown from 2.5 billion in 2001 to over 17 billion by 2012.  Banks are issuing loans, businesses are opening up, and people are seeing the first real progress in years towards building a self-sufficient economy. Television and radio are now booming in Afghanistan, contributing to the meaningful development of an Afghan cultural identity.  International investment has also increased substantially, and is poised to take the place of U.S. military investments in Afghanistan's economy, a critical factor in sustained economic growth.

Afghanistan's GDP Per Capita

All of this leads to a critical question when deciding to continue U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan: Do they really want us to stay?  While it is inaccurate to generalize an entire nation and its people, Afghans by and large view the country as moving in the right direction and see the continued American presence as mostly favorable.  Outside investors, particularly in the mining industry, also heavily favor the continued American presence as a means to ensure long-term security in the county.  The United States continues to work with the Afghan Security Forces and the government to combat some of Afghanistan's most pressing threats including corruption in government, lingering problems with infrastructure, and scattered reports of ISIS fighters attempting to gain a foothold there.  ISIS has been a very hot topic on all major Afghan news discussions, especially after recent reports of possible ISIS fighters in some of Afghanistan's southern provinces (this, more than anything else, may have led to the decision to keep troop levels near 10,000 in 2015).  Lastly (but certainly not least), Afghanistan still has a very poor track record of women's rights, something which takes more than just a change of government to improve. 

Data From The Asia Foundation's Annual Poll of Afghan's Citizens

Overall, U.S. troops are essentially in a support role now (and realistically have been for some time) and it doesn't look like things will ramp up significantly again.  If ISIS gains traction in the region, this may push troops levels up somewhat, but it is highly unlikely this would be a significant, sustained escalation.  Things aren't perfect in Afghanistan, but perhaps the U.S. involvement in the country helped turn things around for the better.  Still, the United States should not take all of the credit for this.  It is the Afghan people themselves who have won their own freedom from the Taliban and its oppression.  Rather than thinking of Afghanistan as a poor, troubled, backward society where foreign nations go to die, we should look at Afghanistan as a beautiful and cultured land with brave people working to bring about a better way of life to their country.  From this perspective, Afghanistan isn't such a graveyard after all.


TL;DR: Life in Afghanistan has improved dramatically during the American occupation.  Keeping a few thousand soldiers there is unlikely to cause major problems for anyone.

Special thanks to friend and colleague Safi Alemi for helping write and proof this post about Afghanistan! 

Understanding The 2015 Israeli Elections: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

For this post we bring in our first ever guest writer Matthew Spencer-Kociol, friend and colleague from the University of Utah.  Here is Matthew's analysis on the Israeli elections and what it all means for the Middle East. 

Get Hype!

The State of Israel held its national Parliamentary elections on Tuesday.  In Israel, the Knesset is the primary governing body which is elected every two years.  They, in turn, choose the Prime Minister of the country for the same two year period.  There are many different parties which have to form coalitions in order to establish a coherent governing body.  This year, the outcome of this Israeli election could have meant the end of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's regime.  If Netanyahu’s Likud party had lost the majority of seats in the Knesset, Israel could have experienced a political sea change- with liberals in charge for the first time in years.  But nay, Netanyahu has eked out a solid margin of victory, snatching it from the jaws of defeat, much to the chagrin of Arabs and liberal Israelis who fought so hard to prevent another Netanyahu term.  But, does this mean that we are going to see several more years of the right-wing Likud party dominating Israeli politics?

Well, not exactly.

It’s not that simple, of course. This is Israeli politics, after all.

Bibi’s party won 30 seats compared to the his competitor, the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.  The deal breaker in this election will be the economy-focused centrist party Kulanu, which could (in the coming coalition building phase) swing right or left, ultimately deciding whether a right-leaning or left-leaning coalition will run the Knesset. If the liberals win the long game,  it’s very possible that a party known as the Joint Arab List will actually play a vital role in decision making in Israel’s new government and could influence Israel on some ground-breaking issues. But according to the New York Times, Netanyahu is confident he can fold Kulanu into his coalition, handily giving him 63 Knesset seats and thus sealing victory for Likud.  But of course, this isn’t quite set in stone.

One second, that’s a lot to take in. These new parties seem to have come out of nowhere! Zionist Union? Joint Arab List? Kulanu? And how do coalitions in a parliament work? And only in Israel could you have groups called “Zionist Union” and “Joint Arab List” work together for common political gains.  To best understand how Israeli politics work, or even function, a lot of context is required to even understand the basics. So without further ado:

 

An American’s Guide to the 2015 Israeli Elections!

 

 The Knesset: It takes two parties to tango, or 3, or 4 or...

The Israeli parliamentary system is rooted in coalitions. Various right-wing parties form a coalition based on common interests, and on the other side of the aisle, Leftists do the same thing. In order to have an outright majority to form the governing force in the Knesset, the winner of this election will need the backing of at least 61 of the Knesset members in order to guarantee an appointment of a Prime Minister from their party.  The most recent Knesset, the 19th, was formed back in 2013 and was able to form a coalition run by two large parties.  These were the Jewish Home Party, and Likud, with the backing of two smaller right-wing religious parties. This coalition was only 60 seats, but the opposition was split by the Arab votes that don’t typically get folded into the Israeli left.

(Courtesy of the National Post)
Here today, gone tomorrow: This graph shows us “Today’s Knesset” to give us an idea of the political makeup of Israel and its coalitions, but it won’t look like this for long!*

So regardless of which politician wins the most votes, it is whoever is popular enough in the Knesset to to form a multiparty coalition that truly counts. The two largest parties to lead respective coalitions are Likud for the right wing coalition, and the Zionist Union for the leftists. There are countless political parties in Israel (unlike in the United States, it’s very common and popular for Israeli politicians to jump from one party to the next). Tzipi Livni, one of the more prominent members of the Knesset, has herself formed political parties in the past only to leave them and join other political parties! It can get confusing so a brief breakdown of current party platforms are the most important things to consider.

The parties of Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu Jewish Home, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Ha’am Itanu (or the Yachad Party) are all considered right leaning. They run the gamut, ranging from right of center moderates to far right religious fundamentalist parties.  The parties of the Zionist Union, Yesh Atid and Meretz are considered more liberal or left-leaning parties.  Now down the middle, the party that will probably decide the new coalition for the 20th Knesset will be the Kulanu party, which has ties to Likud.  But unlike the right wing parties of Israel, Kulanu also stands on a platform of compromise with Palestinians and puts a great emphasis on fighting Israel’s economic problems. Lastly, we have the Arab political parties. For reasons of the new minimum threshold percentage laws for holding seats in the Knesset, the Arab political parties have merged into a Union party. It’s a bit separate from the Israeli left, but the Arab parties and the liberal parties have a lot of platform commonalities.

This is a merely a brief list but you can check out this amazing interactive infographic for more information (Courtesy of Mideast Monitor). Just like this infographic, Israeli politics is long-winded full of lots of little details.

ZIONIST UNION

To give a bit more of an understanding of what the Left in Israel is doing, it’s important to take a look at the Zionist Union. In years past, the political left in the Knesset has been represented by more well known parties like Kadima or the Labour Party (A classic political party that has existed in Israel for decades). The Zionist Union is probably better described as a merger of Tzipi Livni’s most recent political party, Hatnua (see how quickly things change up?) with the inveterate Labour Party. The head of the Zionist Union is Isaac Herzog, who is gaining support not by virtue of his own charisma, but rather by the frustration of the Israeli public with Bibi.  Why is this?  Not only has Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. congress outraged a lot of Americans, it has greatly distressed a lot of Israelis who genuinely feel that their prime minister is threatening their country’s vital relationship with the United States! (Source: The Diane Rehm Show)

Co-leader of the new Zionist Union Party, Isaac Herzog

THE ISRAELI RIGHT WING AND SHELDON ADELSON

However it’s important to never underestimate Netanyahu because he has some powerful wealthy friends. Notably, Shel Adelson- the American billionaire casino tycoon who has a near monopoly on free media outlets in Israel.  He runs free propaganda papers such as Israel Hayom, which circulates more than any other newspaper in Israel and overtly endorses Netanyahu and his Likud party. Just like in the United States, Adelson’s wealth has bought an awful lot of political influence for the movements he has supported, especially the pro-settler movements that have stifled the two state solution and peace progress.  Competing right wing parties and politicians have been hit hard. Naftali Bennet, the economic minister who threatens Netanyahu’s hold on Right wing Israelis, has seen his competitive edge worn away thanks to Adelson’s exclusive support of Likud.

And lest we forget, Ain’t no party like a Joint Arab Party! Previously, The varying Arab political parties always made up a sizable minority of Knesset seats.  However, recent laws introduced by Avigdor Lieberman, a right wing colleague of Netanyahu, dictated that political parties in Israel needed a larger percentage of votes to hold seats than they did in the past (from 2% of the voting public up to 3.25%).  This seems subtle, but it had a huge effect on the Knesset. As a result of this change, the various small Arab political parties decided to merge together in order to maintain any representation in the Israeli government. This new Joint Arab List seems to have gained some serious momentum.  As of this week's election results, it is set to be the third largest political party in Israel.

Considering that the new electoral threshold rules were introduced by Netanyahu’s political forces, the fact that Arab politicians were actually strengthened by this reform can be seen as a really ironic backfire for the hard-Right Israelis opposed to Arab empowerment. In fact, the new leader of the Joint Arab List is Ayman Oudeh, a liberal Arab Israeli who is committed to working with Isaac Herzog of the Zionist Union party in order to push back against Netanyahu and Likud.

(picture 2nd from the right ) Ayman Odeh, the up and coming Arab Israeli politician, is well liked by Left Leaning Jews and Arabs alike. (Courtesy the Jewish Daily Forward.)

BUT WHAT DO ISRAELIS REALLY WANT? 

In short, here’s one sentence to sum up the problems Israeli voters are deeply concerned about:

(No, seriously, it really is!)

Courtesy of Slate.com

Due to rising housing costs, it “Is-raeli” hard to buy a new home in Israel (The writer takes full responsibility for that awful pun). Despite this, Netanyahu’s last minute appeals to the anti-Arab & right-wing settlers seems to be the factor that swung the vote! Again, as noted earlier, Israelis are highly concerned by Netanyahu’s divisive speech to the U.S. Congress given several weeks ago. That is on top of the fact that international issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran’s nuclear program are not the top concerns of Israelis. This may sound hard to believe since both those issues could play a role in Israel’s security, but presently there is a housing crisis in Israel.

Unlike in the United states, lending regulations are very strict and young people trying to start their lives don’t have access to easy loans to afford the increasing price of homes in Israel. Overall, the situation in Israel hasn’t been the best for the country’s middle class, and that could be the main concern of voters today. Opponents of Likud have run campaign ads claiming that Netanyahu has used scare tactics regarding Iran and Palestinian extremists to distract from the Prime Minister’s inability (if not refusal) to acknowledge that Israelis have unmet economic and housing needs. 

The nuclear menace, according to some Israeli critics...

Is merely a distraction!

Here’s the entertainingly animated attack ad against Netanyahu.

This will almost certainly create further problems for the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The subsidies for settlement expansion (as well as the inability for young people to afford homes in Israel proper) amplifies the expansion of settlements and eats away at the proposed Palestinian state. This creates a sort of double whammy against the peace process.  This is in part thanks to policies backed by Bibi Netanyahu, who recently came out to say there will be no two state solution while he is in office. That last minute statement seemed reckless, but this desperate bid for Netanyahu to get right wing voters at the polls to back him appears to have worked. The obvious tension between Netanyahu and President Obama will likely further increase the difficulty of a meaningful resolution to the conflict within the foreseeable future.

THE EMERGING THREE PARTY SYSTEM

At the end of the day we see this: partly in thanks to the new percentage rules for holding seats, the Knesset seems to be on its way to transforming into a de-facto three party system.  Right wing, Left wing, and Arab parties are forming unions to gain strength- which seems to be an added layer to the reality that already existed in the coalition-building atmosphere of the Israeli Parliament.  What remains to be seen is how effectively the Knesset's new coalition can tackle Israel's domestic issues and increasing isolation within the international community.

Matthew is a self-styled "bagel snob and chronic complainer." He lives in Utah with his wife, son, and two very domineering Siamese cats. Special thanks to Eli Sennesh for assisting in finding the political attack ad.

*Correction: The National Post info-graphic incorrectly labeled Yesh Atid as a center-Left party.  Yesh Atid is more correctly attributed as a centrist party.  Special thanks again to Eli Sennesh for catching this!* 

What You Need To Know About Boko Haram And The Alliance With ISIS

"We announce our allegiance to the Caliph ... and will hear and obey in times of difficulty and prosperity, in hardship and ease." -Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau

Abubakar Shekau

Over the weekend, the Nigerian based extremist group Boko Haram pledged its allegiance to the violent militant faction in Iraq and Syria known as ISIS.  As one of the most powerful and dangerous groups of its kind, this pledge of cooperation and loyalty is a big win for the self-styled Caliph of the Muslim world Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Boko Haram has been increasing in both power and brutality over the past several years, and this new alliance has the potential to make matters worse.  What does all of this mean in the greater fight against armed religious extremism?  First, let's investigate the Islamic version of the concept of allegiance used by Boko Haram and what it means for the image of ISIS.

In Islam, the concept of pledging allegiance and support for a ruler is known as bay'ah.  Bay'ah traces all the way back to the original Islamic society under the Prophet Muhammad and the tribes which began supporting him over time.  By pledging bay'ah, one is promising to submit to another's authority and carry out their wishes if commanded.  This is not unlike oaths of fealty in medieval times or international treaties of mutual defense today.

This basically brings the two organizations into much closer contact and publicly announces that they are working together to achieve similar aims.  In addition to potentially coordinating attacks and sharing information, Boko Haram can now use its influence to recruit more followers to the cause of ISIS, and ISIS to Boko Haram.  The two organizations are separated by hundreds of miles, so direct coordination between the two would be difficult.  However, the support of Boko Haram lends an important sense of "legitimacy" to the organization in its push for recognition as its (deranged) version of the purest Muslim society. 

A map of the places hardest hit by Boko Haram attacks

What is Boko Haram anyway and why are they so important?  The phrase "Boko Haram" roughly translates into "Western education is forbidden."  Like many other groups of its kind, Boko Haram is angry at the perceived spread of "Western" values and will ruthlessly fight any attempts to secularize society.  The group sprung up in the early 2000s and has ties to the original version of al-Qaeda as organized by Osama bin Laden.  They are comprised of around 10,000 members, and have seized control of small sections of territory in northeast Nigeria, and in some small sections of nearby Chad, Niger, and Cameroon.  Like ISIS, they take over territory and brutally suppress any opposition, murdering, extorting, and torturing all who would attempt to stop them.

If Boko Haram seems vaguely familiar, it is because this organization has made some headlines before in the American press (though not nearly as often as they should have).  Their brutality and callous disregard for human life is obvious.  Last year, Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 schoolgirls, committing mass rape and forcing most of them into labor camps or arranged marriages.  This sparked off the Twitter awareness campaign #bringbackourgirls (nearly all of these girls are still missing or presumed dead).  Though the Twitter activism this event spawned was helpful to bring attention to the matter, in the end it did little to actually bring back their girls.  More recently in early January, the insurgent group attacked the village of Baga and massacred over 2,000 of its residents.  Unfortunately, this event received relatively little coverage in comparison,  In short, Boko Haram has been terrorizing the Nigerian government for over a decade, and is (by some estimates) more powerful and well organized than Nigeria's official military forces.

Nigerians protesting the slow response to the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls

This means that Boko Haram is clearly a threat to both Nigeria and the entire central-west region of Africa.  Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and home to some of the largest oil reserves on the continent.  The country's northeast region has over half a million refugees, and the political landscape of Nigeria increases the possibility that Boko Haram can gain control of even more areas of the county, just like ISIS did last summer in Iraq and Syria.  Though such a large-scale takeover of even more Nigerian territory is still unlikely, increased terror attacks in the region are a certainty.  Thus far, Nigeria's president Goodluck Jonathan has been painfully slow to acknowledge the threat of Boko Haram and his country's instability. Though Nigeria and some of its neighbors are launching a counteroffensive against Boko Haram, the fight is far from over.  Thousands will continue to die in the meantime.

President Goodluck Jonathan (Yes that is his real name)

So what does this mean for global terrorism or the threat of attacks against American targets?  As far as global terrorism is concerned, it is still unclear how or if this will change things considerably.  The primary focus of Boko Haram's attacks have been regional rather than global.  Unless Boko Haram and ISIS change their strategies towards actively planning global attacks (now they only encourage them rather than actually help coordinate them) it doesn't seem likely that this will directly threaten the rest of the world.  If anything, it might only encourage some sympathetic individuals to commit "lone wolf" attacks against small scale targets.  In all of this, it is important to remember that the average person is still more likely to die in a bathtub than by a terrorist attack.

Boko Haram and its complicated relationships

A much greater direct threat would come from some of the various al-Qaeda inspired groups pledging bay'ah to ISIS.  Right now, this seems unlikely as al-Qaeda's various offshoots in North Africa, Yemen, and the Levant are still divided on both leadership and focus (they differ on attacking the "near enemy" of regional powers vs the "far enemy" of Europe or the United States, among other things).  If such an alliance did solidify and become more than just paying lip-service to a fellow violent Islamic group, it could turn the message of ISIS towards attacking targets at home rather than encouraging supporters to travel to Syria and Iraq to perform their twisted version of jihad.  As we have seen before, this particular ideology has more direct implications for U.S. policy and more directly threatens "Westerners." 

In all, it's clear the problem of ISIS is still growing at an alarming rate, but we shouldn't expect this to be a permanent alliance.  Extremely headstrong and zealous groups such as these often fall apart once they are presented with real challenges or ideological disagreements.  Just like al-Qaeda in its original form, it only takes a few serious problems or leadership changes before they splinter and break up.  Naturally, those seeking to fight these organizations will work to expose and exploit those differences.  While this strategy will help weaken their ability to fight, it will not outright defeat them.  As citizens, we can't really do much to stop Boko Haram or ISIS directly.  But as humans, we can help make lives in the region just a little bit better through charity and encouraging the development of education and infrastructure.  This isn't the quick solution, but ultimately it is the most effective.

TL;DR:  This is probably just a political stunt to make ISIS look good.  Either way, you're not going to get attacked by either group.  It's the people caught in the middle of their power struggle who really suffer.

The (Not So) Special U.S.-Israeli Relationship

"We have Israel's back come hell or high water."- Susan Rice, U.S. National Security Adviser

Well, here goes the first post about Israel.  No matter what I write here, someone will find offense....

..And We've Already Offended Someone With This Map

On Tuesday, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is addressing a joint session of Congress.  In a move which has generated significant controversy, House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak without first consulting with the White House (invitations like this almost exclusively come from the President, not individual members of Congress).  Netanyahu will speak about the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program (a subject already covered in this post).  Basically, Netanyahu would rather pursue a (probably U.S.) military option instead of Obama's current policy of negotiations. 

Why is this such a big deal and why do Americans seem to care so much about Israel's opinion over that of other regional powers?  Well, much of this has to do with Israel's founding and several key events which have led to the current "unique" partnership. Though many Americans strongly believe that Israel is a truly exceptional ally in the region, the facts on the ground show that it behaves a lot more like most U.S. allies (often helpful, but occasionally unruly).  

The modern state of Israel has its origins in the World Zionist Organization.  In the late 1800s, this group of prominent Jewish scholars founded the political-religious ideology known as Zionism, which among other things called for the creation of a homeland for the Jews in response to anti-Semitism throughout Europe.  When the British and French carved up the Middle East following the First World War, the British created the Palestinian Mandate and began allowing the controlled immigration of European Jews into the region.  By the end of the Second World War, over 400,000 Jews had immigrated to Palestine, causing extreme tension with the indigenous Arab population.  After a prolonged insurgency by Jewish groups against the British in 1946 and 1947, the British abandoned Palestine.  The Palestinian Jews then declared their own nation, Arab neighbors invaded in response to reports of large-scale forced evacuations of Arabs, and the state of Israel quickly defeated Arab armies and won its independence.  (A much lengthier summary can be found on the Middle East Policy Council educational website.)

The Creation of Modern Israel

The U.S. was one of the first countries to recognize this independence.  However, the U.S.-Israeli relationship did not fully solidify until the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.  When the U.S. offered to resupply Israel's army at the expense of Egypt's, it brought America and Israel much closer together (while simultaneously angering most other nations in the region causing the oil crisis of the 1970s).  Since then, Israel and the United States have been close (though far from perfect) allies.

So what is this relationship founded upon besides history?  Well, like any good international relationship, it all starts with guns.  The United States provides Israel with 3 billion dollars in military aid every year (some of which is part of the Camp David Accords which help maintain the peace between Egypt and Israel).  However, this deal has one special caveat for Israel.  All other nations which receive military aid from the United States are required to spend it on American defense companies (Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, L-3 Communications....).  This basically helps stimulate the U.S. economy and ensures that America controls the weapons it provides to other nations (a way to both know what everyone is armed with and know how to defeat them if necessary).  Israel, however, is only required to spend 75% of this in the United States, the other 25% can be spent buying weapons from anyone (even China).

Three Billion A Year Can Buy A Lot Of Tanks

Besides weapons sales, military cooperation also highlights this interesting relationship.  Like most nations in the region, Israel provides the U.S. with information on suspected terrorists or "rouge states."  Some of this intelligence has been very useful (helping to stop terrorist plots) while other times it has backfired (selling secrets to other nations or exaggerating the strength of Iran's nuclear program).  Still, deception isn't exactly unheard of in espionage.  Looking specifically at the Israeli military, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) have provided indirect support to U.S. operations in the past.  However, they have never directly fought alongside American military forces in combat.  None of this makes Israel a bad ally (they still provide meaningful support for many U.S. endeavors), but it cracks the myth of Israel as a perfect, unwaveringly loyal friend in the region.

Another commonly held reason in favor of the strength of the relationship is regional stability.  Israel remains one of the most stable countries in the region and does not appear in immediate danger of collapsing or being overthrown.  Despite claims that Israel is constantly under threat by its Arab neighbors (now only rouge extremist factions pose any meaningful threat to the nation), Israel holds the most technologically advanced military hardware (thanks to the U.S.) and seems unlikely to attack or be attacked anytime soon.  The nation is also the only nuclear armed country in the region, though neither Israel nor the U.S. will admit this.  Essentially, all of this makes Israel a useful (though often unpredictable) ally for the United States.

On a more personal level, there are also strong ideological reasons for the intense backing of Israel by some Americans.  Much of this is related to the concept of Christian Premillenialism.  This is a (not universally held) Christian belief in the necessity of Israel to bring about an interpretation of the Christian End of Days. Essentially, some interpretations believe that they must support Israel as it holds importance in the coming of the Rapture, Armageddon, the 1000 year reign of Jesus, and all that fun stuff.  Fire and brimstone aside, reminders of the Holocaust and the constant emphasis on antisemitism throughout the world are also used to generate strong support for Israel.  Though the horrifying events of the Holocaust are inappropriate as a justification for the actions of a modern nation-state, reminders of the terror unleashed by Nazi Germany are occasionally brought up to stifle opposition to Israeli policy.

Jesus seems to make a lot of appearances on this blog...

Finally, we come to the most influential factor in terms of public opinion: The Lobby.  The America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a lobbying organization (like tobacco or energy lobbying companies) which seeks to influence American Congressmen and women to further a political agenda.  This is not a conspiracy, or some nefarious shadow government.  AIPAC is just like any other lobby and it is really good at what it does (attempting to influence politicians through meetings, personal connections, and campaign contributions).  The only difference in this case is that AIPAC is lobbying for another nation-state rather than a company or industry.  Unlike other lobbies which may have a strong partisan leaning, AIPAC has a wide influence in both the Republican and Democratic parties (though it seems to have more influence with the Republicans, possibly because of the aforementioned religious factor). 

All of this might help explain why Boehner invited the Israeli PM to speak about Iran instead of inviting other regional leaders.  All Middle Eastern nations have a huge stake in the Iranian nuclear talks, but Israel is often perceived as a closer ally to the United States.  Strong support of Israel has been a staple of American politics for decades, and Obama has often been criticized for not doing more to show his backing of the country. 

Israeli PM Netanyahu and his wife Sarah

This support does however have some drawbacks in Middle East policy.  Most other countries in the region have yet to establish formal diplomatic ties with Israel.  This is directly tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (something which will probably require several future posts to fully unpack).  The animosity between these nations is also due in large part to the difficult circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel and Israel's identity which sets itself completely apart from its Arab neighbors.  The uninvited (at least by Obama) arrival of Netanyahu has complicated the balancing act between these Middle East relationships.  This might help explain why the President has refused to meet with him during this trip.

In all, Netanyahu's speech is unlikely to drastically change America's current policy on Iranian negotiations.  Instead, it will likely be used to generate support for Netanyahu (in his upcoming election) and the Republicans in 2016.  This post should not be taken as a scathing critique of Israel and its policies (though future posts will investigate some of Israel's policy decisions).  Instead, these examples should be used to help understand the complexity of the U.S.-Israeli relationship and debunk some of the myths about Israel's "unwavering" support for the United States.  Like any other nation (Arab countries included), Israel has its own objectives which often contradict U.S. interests.  No matter what Netanyahu says in his address to Congress, it would be best to remember that his opinions and policy ideas must be weighed against those of America's other regional allies.  Ultimately, America's decision on the Iranian nuclear negotiations is hers alone.


TL;DR: Israel isn't exactly special, but it is a useful (though not always fully reliable) U.S. ally.