The Nation: The 51st State

The American commitment to Israel is something that transcends formal international agreements. It is partly an emotional tie, an almost institutionalized impulse of sympathy left over from the state’s birth out of the European holocaust. It is also a powerful and sometimes disturbing factor. No presidential candidate, for example, would risk the hostility of the nation’s Jewish voters —and wealthy Jewish contributors—by even hinting that his affection for Israel was less than total. One of George McGovern’s insistent, and so far less than persuasive campaign themes, has been his distinguishing between his dovish stand on Viet Nam and his relatively hawkish position in support of Israel.

Given the near-unanimity of politicians on the subject, Conservative William F. Buckley Jr. has suggested that the U.S. and Israel formalize their relationship. “Why,” he writes, “should we not propose to Israel annexation, as the 51st American state?” Buckley goes on to envision the advantages: “If Israel’s foreign policy were written in Washington, the Arab countries’ fear of Israeli expansionism would end”; presumably the U.S. would begin by returning all the territories conquered in the Six-Day War. “If Israel becomes part of the U.S., there is no further question of attacking the state of Israel—as well attack the city of Chicago.”

Buckley’s “modest proposal” has a whimsically beguiling logic. After all, he remarks hyperbolically, Hawaii and Alaska are as far from Washington as Tel Aviv; and if Spanish-speaking Americans are allowed to vote, why not Hebrew-speaking Americans? Of course, Buckley concedes, some Israelis might object, but they might be won over, “provided we affirmed our dedication to states’ rights.”