In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, a Jerusalem-born U.S. citizen sued to have his passport indicate that he was born in Israel—in keeping with legislation passed by Congress, but contrary to State Department policy. The Supreme Court has now ruled against the plaintiff and in favor of the State Department. But Rick Richman sees a silver lining for Israel:
[T]here have been rumors that France plans to submit to the UN Security Council a resolution to prescribe a Palestinian state in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria with a capital in Jerusalem, and with a negotiating deadline of eighteen months. The Obama administration is thought to be considering voting for the resolution, or allowing it to pass with a U.S. abstention.
If it takes either course, though, it will be violating multiple representations made multiple times to the Supreme Court in the Zivotofsky litigation. . . . Just putting “Israel” in Zivotofsky’s passport, the administration said, could “cause irreversible damage” to negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], by “prejudging the final and permanent status of Jerusalem.” The same representations were made in an earlier brief filed by Secretary [Hillary] Clinton.
Having litigated for years, all the way to the Supreme Court, to prevent the mere mention of “Israel” in Zivotofsky’s passport, on grounds it might signal a U.S. position on the outcome of negotiations over Jerusalem and thereby possibly destroy the peace process, it would now be remarkable—to use the least loaded word—for the administration to turn around and support a United Nations resolution specifying a Palestinian state that includes Jerusalem.
Read more on New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/foreign/jerusalem-passport-case-could-yet-boomerang/89187/