Something I used to hear when I was a kid is that there’s no need to create a Palestinian state because if Jordan was turned into a democracy, then in effect that would be a Palestinian state and then Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza could go move there. Voluntarily, I guess. Or else maybe they could be “encouraged” to go. That’s not really a position one wants to advance in the context of international diplomacy, but with anti-Muslim sentiment on the rise in Europe, far-right Israeli political positions are suddenly finding a respectful hearing. For example, Geert Wilders, leading of the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, sees a “Greater Israel” agenda as part of an epochal conflict between the West and Islam:

“Jordan is Palestine,” said Wilders, who heads the third-largest party in Holland. “Changing its name to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland.”

Wilders added that Israel deserved a special status in the Dutch government because it was fighting for Jerusalem in its name.

“If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism,” he said.

“There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” Wilders also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

In light of the recent election results, there’s actually a fairly plausible scenario in which Wilders could become the main junior partner in a right-wing coalition with the Liberals and the Christian Democrats. That could lead to him becoming Foreign Minister and finally Avigdor Lieberman would have a buddy. For now, though, the Christian Democrats seem to have nixed that idea and the Liberals are exploring the idea of forming a coalition with three left-of-center parties, the largest of which is actually led by a secular Jewish guy named “Job Cohen.”

For some reason, major op-ed page editors feel that it’s a good idea to publish op-eds expressing old discredited ideas from discredited figures like John Bolton. For his latest offering, Bolton puts forward what he calls a “three state” approach to the Palestinian problem, in which “Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty.” Matt Duss offers some response. Marc Lynch further observes that this idea is opposed by the government of Egypt, opposed by the government of Jordan, and opposed by the Palestinians. It’s a total non-starter.

It’s also worth appreciating the essentially circular logic behind the suggestion. Behind the “in some configuration” euphemism lies the fact that what Bolton is proposing is that Israel grab whichever choice slices of the West Bank settlers or the IDF want, and Jordan take over administering the rest. But why not just make this offer directly to the Palestinian leadership, rather than to the government of Jordan? Well, because no Palestinian leadership that wanted to stay in power would or could accept it. The idea is deemed too objectionable to the Palestinian population and to Arab sentiment writ large. But this exact same problem arises when you substitute “Jordanian leadership” for “Palestinian leadership.” The underlying problem of the unacceptability of this solution to Palestinian public opinion exists no matter who you put in charge. Putting this idea on the table is just a way of pretending to have an idea to offer while in fact you’re completely unwilling to grapple with the actual situation. If anything, trying to do this would probably make Israel’s security problems much worse by jeopardizing Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and (especially) Jordan as the existing regimes would be destabilized by the presence of the new populations. The idea here is that the government of Jordan could act on Israel’s behalf as the jailer of the Palestinians in a way that allows Israel to avoid moral and political culpability for them. But the Jordanians aren’t nearly that stupid, and I have some trouble believing that Bolton is actually stupid enough to think they might be.