Would Palestine being the 52nd state entitle the Palestinians to mass immigrate to the US?

Oh yeah, that'd be fun.

Here are two reasons:
1. Every other state in the Union agreed or applied to become a state. There is no evidence that a majority or even a small minority of Palestinians or Israelis have any desire to become part of the United States.
2. Prior to statehood, every territory had a significant portion of citizens who were born in, or came from, a state already in the Union. Neither Israel nor Palestine does.

Two things:

1) Neither is interested in becoming the other's fellow citizen.

2) The Hobbsian idea that matters of security trump cultural and religious values is misguided. The American Civil War writ small with nuclear capability.

Pilgrim: I'd like to see you expand on point 2.

This isen't even a new idea. Kidding or not, someone a half century ago suggested that Sicily become the 49th state in order to combat the Mafia. Here's an idea that's even stupider.

The main reason it won't work is that the people involved don't want it. Alaska and Hawaii, the last two and geographically remote, had majorties around 90%, if memory serves, and even they had to fight for years to acheive that status. Puerto Rico has never fully embraced statehood, and even if Canada separated, most of the provinces (even Alberta) would go their own way first. (although eventually, I would expect some Commonwealth-like arrangements if they suit us.)

If we are going to get imperial, let's make a list-- de-Castroed Cuba, for example, to make sure that doesn't happen again. Panama, because we stole it once but the Peanut Farmer gave it away, and now want it back. The rest of the Caribbean, to fight the ~Drug War~. Alberta, because it might be the one place that wouldn't mind. Or Northern Mexico, or better yet, all of Mexico, as that would solve the immigration problem, and the PRI and Democrats would get along just fine, they've got the same institutional mentality. Even Greenland should make the list. So tell me again why those particular chunks of the Middle East should be on the list, even at the bottom?.

And it would be entertaining to see how the Full Faith and Credit Clause would get abused, in both directions. Most of the state codes have the same source, and even in my list above there's not that much incompatibility. But are we going to really try to make English Common Law compatible with two other religious based systems? Good luck. And it would be entertaining to see attempts to use the Establishment Clause in it's original meaning (that states can establish religions) and the modern sense (no contact with relgion and government) in the same Supreme Court case.

Well, it would keep the ACLU busy for real long time.

South America is a loser,annex Iraq(ground floor opportunity),free Lebanon(newest glitterati hotspot) and take a vacation.

Can we improve on the idea and just take Israel?

Raoul's argument is close to mine, though I am much more sympathetic to the plan than he. The fact is, though, the United States has not yet granted statehood to a nation on a different continent, let alone with different languages. If we want to run the expanding statehood experiment--something I personally endorse--Raoul is right that we should start closer to home, and/or in a more peaceful location abroad.

Granting statehood to Puerto Rico, for example, should come first, so that we see how dealing with a state whose primary language is not English works. After that, we should grant statehood to another nation far away that is less peaceful--one of the Eastern European countries, perhaps?--so that we learn to incorporate a state that is on the other side of the world. After those successful test cases have been run, then we can see about granting statehood to chaotic nations and/or areas such as Israel and Palestine.

N.B., Puerto Rico seriously needs make up its mind one way or the other. None of this fence sittng stuff anymore.

Actually, not wanting the Israelis or Palestinians as fellow citizens seems like a very strong argument indeed. In fact, why isn't it a valid objection?

In the end, it's the reason it won't be done.

Strongest argument: the Palis are our culture-enemies. We would be taking a serpent to our bosom, admitting treason to our innermost councils. Our legislature would partake of the chaos of the pre-partition Polish Sejem, in which agents of unfriendly foreign powers undermined the state.

The argument for not admitting Israel applies equally to Palestine, and is more or less the old argument for not extending statehood to the Phillipines: we should not, for all time, commit ourselves to total war at such a distance from our homeland.

Guam is voting this weekend on what it should do. Remaining a Territory is not on the ballot.

Choices are independence, compact of free association or statehood.

The best reason I can think of not to admit the Palestinians is that Arabs have no sense of civic duty. This is, in fact, more or less true of all non-Western states. Civic consciousness is one of our inheritances from the Greeks, which trumped the tribalism of the Jews and early Christians.

You cannot expect an anticivic society to operate effectively in a civic system.

Is peace such a tremendous value that countries would do anything, no matter how absurd, to achieve it?

In the case of Neville Chamberlain, perhaps yes.

Ditto Oslo, it would seem.

But why should the US follow suit?

Brandon:

They'd have to ask in this scenario too.

pj:

Israel seems more likely to ask, especially as they lose the demographic race.

Yes, and by the time they've lost the demographic race hopefully (a) they'll have abandoned socialism and (b) we'll have abandoned the anti-establishment clause, and so we can unite happily.

Would any Palestinian Senator or Congressman be worse than Barbara Boxer or John Conyers or any of their crowd?

Lou's and Harry's arguments make sense to me, especially when you consider that the states which joined after the Civil War knew how to act and what to do as states (i.e., elect governors and legislatures, set up a judicial order, and so on). Israel has done that, but no Arab nation has. Perhaps the best first step would some sort of trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority (contingent on Arafat's death or exile, of course).

I confess I have difficulty in understanding why statehood would resolve the differences between Israel and the Palis or temper passions, although I accept it might get rid some of the lethal toys. In exchange, you would have two festering separatist movements and some riotous fun enforcing Supreme Court decisions on the separation of "church" and state. Also, it would seem the right of return would be sealed. Bye, bye Zionism, hello son of Utah.

Is it possible we have all unconsciously accepted the general Muslim claim that all their grievances stem from the Israli/Palestinian issue? I doubt that very much. But if this idea were to happen, the U.S. would be by definition a Middle Eastern country and would be intimately involved in each and every problem in that turbulent region--whether it wanted to or not. No more choice, ever.

Peter:

You've hit on the point precisely: Utah.

The mind-control device necessary to make the two sides agree to this could more sensibly be used to end the conflict directly.

Paul,

I don't know if you wanted me to address Hobbs or the Civil War.

In terms of Hobbs. In Leviathan, Hobbs argues (my reading) that a citizen will exchange individual freedom for security provided by the state. The citizen compact with the state is founded on this "need" to be secure to the point that all other considerations are secondary. I do not believe that would accurately describe either Palestine or Israel. The grant of security just is not vital enough when your reason to fight arises from the sense of securing "justice". The ethnic enmity brought to a boil by religious perspective makes one bold, determined, and irrational all at the same time. The Israelis have no real choice in the matter. All of their concessions fall on deaf ears.
Conservatives understand as well as any that when you believe your cause is just there is no cost too high. Palestine, rightly or wrongly, believes that Israel exists by virtue of stealing their land. The only solution is to drive Israel into the sea. They will remain implacable enemies. Those sort of religious and cultural disagreements lead to brother fighting brother. Like two rival gangs they would rather die than bear the insult. They have each demonstrated proficiency in mayhem.
Giving them the right to vote or receive Social Security payments will not answer.

Paul,

I don't know if you wanted me to address Hobbs or the Civil War.

In terms of Hobbs. In Leviathan, Hobbs argues (my reading) that a citizen will exchange individual freedom for security provided by the state. The citizen compact with the state is founded on this "need" to be secure to the point that all other considerations are secondary. I do not believe that would accurately describe either Palestine or Israel. The grant of security just is not vital enough when your reason to fight arises from the sense of securing "justice". The ethnic enmity brought to a boil by religious perspective makes one bold, determined, and irrational all at the same time. The Israelis have no real choice in the matter. All of their concessions fall on deaf ears.
Conservatives understand as well as any that when you believe your cause is just there is no cost too high. Palestine, rightly or wrongly, believes that Israel exists by virtue of stealing their land. The only solution is to drive Israel into the sea. They will remain implacable enemies. Those sort of religious and cultural disagreements lead to brother fighting brother. Like two rival gangs they would rather die than bear the insult. They have each demonstrated proficiency in mayhem.
Giving them the right to vote or receive Social Security payments will not answer.

My arguments against the idea: (A) The Palestinians are not yet able to discuss political issues freely, nor express their wishes in free and fair elections. Until that is the case, we have no way of knowing if the Palestinian people would consent to join the U.S. Thus, we need Palestinian democracy first, then we can consider this plan. (A') Both Palestine and Israel seem to be moving in positive directions, toward societies more compatible with American laws than they were a few years back. However, the motion is in very early stages at best, and may prove to be a false start. It is to our benefit to wait until the improvement is well establishd before letting them in, thereby obtaining more qualified entrants. And since the answer is "not now, maybe later," there's no need for us to make the decision until later.

Perhaps they could be territories a while first, like Alaska and Hawaii. That would mitigate my arguments, letting them become American without our irrevocably giving them the rights of states.

mike:

That's very much the point--the efforts haven't been successful. Under this proposal Israel gets peace and security and the Palestinians get a state, a legal system and economic development.

Like two rival gangs they would rather die than bear the insult.

Such a position might be hard to reconcile with Israeli PM Ehud Barak's attempt, under the Oslo process, to provide Palestinians with a state in 2000-2001. Or with the Israeli position that negotiations could resume only when the terror war is ended---or at least fought by the PA (which is, of course, an absurd request, given the PA's participation in, and promotion of, that terror war).

On the other hand, given that both Barak and his attempts to reach a peace agreement with Arafat have been airbrushed from history (or reinterpreted as attempts to squelch Palestinian statehood rather than grant it), it would appear that holding such a position is entirely justifiable.

Assuming that this could only happen if each of them consented by way of a referendum, where would you be if the Palestinians said yes and Israel said no? Or vice versa?

One state richer.

OJ -

Quite possibly; but if that was all each side wanted, they could have had it already.

They both want to win--becoming American is the jackpot.

Mr. Judd;

As someone mentioned, the cultural issue is the big one. With the Palestinians we would have the Quebec problem except with suicide bombers. Imagine a Huey Long who was willing to have his political opponents shot down in the street. Basically, we'd have to have a federal government occupation, much like the Israeli one, and I have yet to see any evidence that ours would go better than theirs.

Moreover, what's held out as a reward for the Palestinians in economic prosperity. But history shows that the Palestinians have always chosen violence over properity.

I'd also note that states came from territories, which prior to statehood were administered by the federal government. Statehood came when (among other things) the territory demonstrated the ability to govern itself. For Israel, we could use the Texas precedent. But as noted above, we would have to occupy and administer the Palestinian areas and wait for some level of Western style self government. While the USA of old could have done that, we are far to tied down with legalisms and political correctness to act with the forthrightness that would be required. It would be like one big inner city where the inhabitants were willing to drive out of town to kill on a regular basis.

AOG:

They had a relatively peaceful and (by Middle Eastern standards) productive society--with a not insignificant middle class--until we imposed Israel on them. So we go in and arrest, try, and kill a bunch of miscreants--meanwhile the rest of the society gets participatory democracy and the economy gets moving. Within a generation you'd have a stable enough society.

I'm pretty certain you're not saying that the terrorists will go away and the bombings stop if we keep things as they've been.? We know that hasn't worked.

Mr. Judd;

I don't believe that if Palestine were a state in the USA that it would be politically possible to "go in and arrest, try, and kill a bunch of miscreants".

And I don't believe that the terrorists would go away if we ignore them, but as a state they would have far easier access to the rest of the country and enormously better legal protection. What happens when Arafat is easily able to threaten Old Media types in America as he is doing to the local media?

As for the relatively peaceful and productive society, I think you mean until the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Easier to extradite Arafat to stand trial if it were a state. And he'd never win an open election.

And the winner is . . . Pilgrim.

The reason that this won't happen is that there wouldn't be a majority in any of the three populations in favor of it. But that's not quite an argument against it.

Israel is in a particularly difficult situation just now, because almost any path out of the current situation implies that the Zionist roots of her founding were mistaken. Whether Israel survives or not, everyone now recognizes that the only guarantor of Jewish survival is the US. Nevertheless, people immigrate from here to there based upon their emotional attachment to the idea of a Jewish state.

Although it will also seem odd to us, economics would also militate against a "yes" vote. Israeli workers and state industries have had decades of socialist coddling. They will not soon vote for economic reform even in their own country. They will not vote to lose the country and their security blanket.

However, as Pilgrim suggests, the real flaw with the fifty-two state plan is that it misconcieves the Palestinian situation. Or, better, the Palestinians' mispercieve their own situation.

This plan is based on the US and Israeli perception that the Palis have hit bottom, have lost all hope and need help finding the path out of the thicket. This is not what the Palestinian leadership thinks at all. The leadership thinks that it's winning. After all, each new terror wave improves its bargaining position. The Israelis keep answering terror by giving the Palestinians better bargaining position, without the Palestinians having to give up anything. Arafat, on the back of terror, has increased his personal fortune, employed his kin and cronies and been elected President of a quasi-state. What makes any of us think that he's looking for a way out?

David:

That's not actually an argument against the idea, just an observation that the Palestinians might not be given an opportunity to try it. Indeed, it could be considered a powerful argument in favor of publicizing the idea in Palestine.

You'll notice I dind't say anything about the Palestinian people, just about the leadership. If they need a quasi-American political culture to realize that they need a quasi-American political culture to realize that they are losers who should take whatever they can get, then the idea is a non-starter. If they can throw off Arafat, Hammas, Hezbollah, and the klepto-Islamists in order to consider the idea, then they don't need it.

You don't think they'd fare better as a state than as a country?

Of course they would. Who wouldn't? Among other things, this is a people with a median income of about $3200.00 per year. But that, alone doesn't oblige us to act, particularly when there is such a strong downside for us and very little chance of an upside.

It wouldn't work. It would increase terrorism, not decrease it. It would tie our hands and the Israeli's hands in responding. In the longterm, of course, it might work, but in the longterm we're all dead.

But when they do get rid of Arafat they could still use it, no? It makes sense for Palestinians?

It makes sense for just about any nation with a fairly stable society and a not-so-great economic output to become an American state.

Mexico, for example, could easily double its GNP if it had American laws, business managers, and civil and financial infrastructure.

Israel is prosperous enough that joining the United States might not make sense, as long as the US is willing to continue to guarantee Israel's existence.

Michael:

Except that it will be majority Muslim in a couple decades.

How does joining the US help Israel stay a Jewish state ?

Either way, they have to re-think their founding premise.