Originally posted by spruce112358
Let's see if you get these:
1) Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem are:
a) A flagrant violation of international law
b) Just fine
2) Palestinians are allowed to build in East Jerusalem:
a) almost never
b) whenever they like
3) Israel is attempting to:
a) annex East Jerusalem by creating 'facts on the ground'
b) bring about peace and justice for all
If you answered 'a' to all, then you understand what the fuss is about.
Except that Ramat Shlomo is NOT East Jerusalem.
First, it's not in the eastern part of Jerusalem, it's north. The area due south of Ramat Shlomo is Jewish West Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo does not so much as border an Arab neighborhood.
Second, it cannot be "Arab East Jerusalem" (which is, of course, the only significance delineated by the term "East Jerusalem" ) because it was never an Arab neighborhood in the first place.
The only possible relevance that this could have to East Jerusalem is that it's over the Green Line. But that obviously can't be the sole criterion in determining what is considered East Jerusalem, as the entire West Bank is over the Green Line.
The fact that a smart guy like you so casually confuses Ramat Shlomo with East Jerusalem is a testament to the misleading manner in which the media has reported this story. I also made this same mistake until a resident of Jerusalem explained all of this to me just yesterday. Of course, I went to Google Earth to confirm; and he was, of course, correct.
As for your questions:
1) There's no such thing as international law; except that countries are generally bound to treaties they sign. Countries don't have the authority to bind other sovereigns by their own laws. That's why they call countries "sovereigns" i.e., because they have their own sovereignty. As I believe that Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem are not just fine; neither answer is correct.
2) (a) is closer than (b); though it's probably somewhere in between.
3) Israel has already annexed East Jerusalem. In any case, the Ramat Shlomo buildings are irrelevant to East Jerusalem. As for answering the question in a complete vacuum, probably a little of each; though in all likelihood, East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, if a comprehensive agreement is ever reached.