Mike Huckabee, the candidate for transfer:

When asked about a Palestinian state, Gov. Huckabee stated that he supports creating a Palestinian state, but believes that it should be formed outside of Israel. He named Egypt and Saudi Arabia as possible alternatives, noting that the Arabs have far more land than the Israelis and that it would only be fair for other Arab nations to give the Palestinians land for a state, rather than carving it out of the tiny Israeli state.

Right, because it's not as if Palestinians have any connection to the land in which they've lived for generations. Git 'em up, move 'em on! You can imagine the response if a candidate were to suggest anything like this in regard to Israel: Abe Foxman's tie would spin around, Commentary's server would crash, and Marty Peretz would order James Kirchick to crush a paper cup.

Also, that candidate's campaign would be over, and deservedly so.

But this is America, and these are the Palestinians we're talking about, so there's absolutely no political downside to suggesting that they can just be herded into a neighboring country. I mean, one Arab state is just like another, right? What's funny here is that Huckabee is apparently so ignorant of the history of Israel and Palestine that he doesn't think to suggest Jordan as a Palestinian homeland, which tends to be the more commonly preferred site for transfer among ultra-Zionist rejectionists.

Not that we needed any more proof that Mike Huckabee's actual knowledge of the Middle East ends with Revelation, but it's a sign of the tragic imbalance in the discussion over the Israel-Palestine conflict in the U.S. that a statement this radical and offensive by a leading candidate for president can pass almost completely without comment by the mainstream media.

--Matthew Duss