There's a serious spat going on about Israeli building plans in Jerusalem. President Obama has rebuked the Israelis for the intention of building in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem which even the Geneva Accords people defined as Israeli. The Israeli lefties I follow on Twitter are all agog about the Israeli audacity (in the negative meaning of the term). Netanyahu has responded sharply: Jerusalem isn't a settlement, it's our capital. He's right, of course.
There are parts of the so-called peace-camp left who are so determined to force their agenda on Israel that in recent years they're moving ever closer to an overall denying of Jewish history. This is a subject I've alluded to occasionally, and probably ought to write about systematically someday. Today I won't go back centuries or millenia;15 years will suffice. A few months before his assassination, Yitzchak Rabin had a meeting with Dr. Israel Kimche, a scholar who knows Jerusalem and its issues as well as anyone alive; Kimche had managed to finagle a meeting with the prime minister because as he saw it, the peace process was heading towards a discussion of the division of Jerusalem, and he wanted Rabin to start thinking about it. Rabin's public position was that peace process or not, Jerusalem would not be divided and would remain under Israeli sovereignty; during the meeting he was extremely nervous and anxious to get it over with, fearing that even the appearance of listening to a scholarly presentation about division would be politically ruinous.
So far as anyone can know, he died convinced that peace could be reached without dividing the city.
No-one needs to expect the Palestinians negotiators to accept that position. But perhaps it might be reasonable for self-proclaimed Israeli champions of peace to recognize that on Jerusalem, their anointed saint the martyred Rabin held the same position Netanyahu does.