Netanyahu: We're Not Going to Share Jerusalem

Meanwhile, others who live in denial still think it's possible to make peace with the Palestinians:

Israel's leader dismissed Sunday a top ally's call to share the holy city of Jerusalem with the Palestinians, another reminder of the challenges the U.S. faces as it shifts gears on its troubled Mideast peacemaking strategy.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reaffirmation of his intention to hold on to east Jerusalem was liable to escalate friction between the two sides and with the Americans. The White House Mideast envoy is scheduled to arrive this week in another attempt to push peace efforts forward.

The conflicting claims to East Jerusalem lie at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The dispute over the area, home to sensitive Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites, has derailed past peace talks and spilled into violence.

The Palestinians want to establish their future state in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war. Israel later annexed east Jerusalem in a move that is not recognized by the international community.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed frustration with the Israeli-Palestinian impasse over the weekend, though she did not suggest a new way forward. She spoke at a forum in Washington.

Addressing the same gathering, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the holy city will have to be shared as part of a future peace deal.

Barak and Hillary just don't get it. Netanyahu understands that a real and lasting peace with Palestinians is impossible because the only thing they want is for Israel and all Jews to be driven into the sea.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders understands the situation better than Hillary Clinton does:

Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, said last week he believes Jordan should be renamed Palestine. The Jordanian government responded by saying Wilders' speech was reminiscent of the Israeli right wing.

"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.

The Saudi Al-Watan carried Jordan's response to Wilders' speech. The kingdom's embassy in Hague was outraged, and said the Dutch ambassador would soon be summoned to explain.

Jordan's minister for media affairs and communications, Nabil Al Sharif, asked for clarifications. He described Wilders' declaration as "an echo of the voice of the Israeli Right" and "crows' screams".

"Jordan is an independent and secure country which supports the Palestinian issue, and these imaginings of finding them an alternate homeland are nothing but the delusions of a few people," he said....

Jihad Watch adds some context:

Wilders is right. There is no ethnic difference between Jordanians and Palestinians. In fact, there was no Palestinian nationality before the 1960s, when it was invented in order to reposition what was then universally known as the Arab/Israeli conflict. Up to the invention of "Palestinians," the Israelis were the tiny, besieged people amidst a huge number of hostile Arabs; after that invention, the "Palestinians" themselves became the tiny, besieged people against the big, bad Israelis.

Further negotiations are a waste of time when one side will not be happy until the other is destroyed.