Two excellent editorials at the New York Sun on Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the case considering the constitutionality of the law giving Americans born in Jerusalem the right to have “Israel” on their passports as their place of birth: “Jerusalem and the Founders,” and “The Presidential Instrument.”
My summary of Monday’s oral argument, as well as my thoughts on (1) how the whole case could have been avoided (with both sides winning), and (2) what should happen after it, no matter who wins, is at PJ Media today: “The President, Congress, and Menachem Zivotofsky’s Passport.”
In an article at the Sun in September on the White House scrubbing of “Israel” from the references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on its website, I noted that the administration’s brief in Zivotofsky asserted that U.S. policy was to be neutral on all questions of sovereignty over Jerusalem and the West Bank, pending negotiations. But I noted that the White House website, at the same location, referred to “the Palestinian Territories,” when the proper designation – given the asserted U.S. policy – should be “disputed territories.”
As of today, the references to “the Palestinian Territories” remain on the White House website. Even the administration’s policy of neutrality is one-sided.