Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced legislation on Thursday that would ban the federal government from using the term “West Bank” and instead use the historically accurate term “Judea and Samaria.” As expected, some left-wing media objected to refraining from using the term that Jordan coined as an anti-factual attack on Israel.

The Case for Using “Judea and Samaria” in U.S. Government Discourse

Senator Cotton’s recent introduction of the “RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria Act” presents a critical opportunity to return historical accuracy and clarity to discussions regarding the disputed territories of Israel. The bill, which seeks to retire the term “West Bank” in favor of the historically and biblically grounded term “Judea and Samaria,” strikes at the heart of historical revisionism and political bias in how we talk about the region.

Historical Context: A Return to the Truth

The territories in question—Judea and Samaria—have been part of the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland for thousands of years. As recorded in the Bible and reinforced by archaeological evidence, these lands were known as Judea and Samaria from the earliest days of Hebrew settlement. These regions were central to the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and their connection to the Jewish people is religious and deeply historical.

The term “West Bank” is a relatively modern invention introduced by Jordan after illegally occupying the region in 1948. Before that, these territories were part of the British Mandate for Palestine, and their legal status was clear under international law, particularly in the context of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate. That mandate cedes Judea and Samaria to a future Jewish state by explicitly recognizing the Jewish people’s historical connection to that land.

Furthermore, Jordan’s use of “West Bank” was a deliberate move to reframe the region’s identity, distance it from its Jewish roots, and downplay Israel’s historical claims. This is a crucial point because while “West Bank” might seem neutral or descriptive, it is, in reality, a politically charged term that originated from a geopolitical agenda that sought to deny Jewish historical rights.

Israel reconquered the land in the defensive 1967 Six-Day War.  Many legal scholars reason that since defensive war is not illegal according to international law, it follows that the defender’s territorial gains from such a war would not be unlawful.

Reaffirming Israel’s Sovereignty

The bill introduced by Senator Cotton and co-sponsored by numerous Republicans aims to remove the political baggage accompanying the term “West Bank.” By mandating that U.S. government documents use “Judea and Samaria” instead, the legislation affirms Israel’s sovereignty over these areas and acknowledges its undeniable historical and legal claims.

This approach is not about erasing Palestinian identity or denying their claims to parts of the land. Instead, it is about acknowledging the historical truth of the region. Just as other countries are not asked to erase their historical narratives when discussing territories, Israel should be afforded the same respect for its history and its right to call these areas by their rightful names.

The term “Judea and Samaria” also reflects the reality of the situation on the ground. The Jewish people have maintained a continuous presence in these territories for millennia, and they are deeply integrated into the modern State of Israel. By using the term “West Bank,” one perpetuates a false dichotomy—one that implies the territory is separate from Israel rather than a part of the nation’s ongoing historical and cultural heritage.

Cultural and Political Implications

Opponents of the bill, particularly from left-wing factions, have decried it as “censorship” and an attempt to “rewrite history.” This reaction, however, misses the broader point. Language is not merely descriptive; it is powerful. Words shape perceptions and influence policies. The term “West Bank” has been weaponized as a tool to promote Palestinian national aspirations and delegitimize Israel’s rightful claim to its land.

By embracing “Judea and Samaria,” the U.S. government would be taking a stand against this form of historical revisionism. It would also be supporting Israel in its fight against a pervasive narrative that seeks to delegitimize its sovereignty. This is not about denying the Palestinians a future or a voice; it is about standing for truth and honoring the historical connection of the Jewish people to their land.

Furthermore, the bill’s supporters point out the need for clarity in international diplomacy. Terms like “West Bank” can be ambiguous, clouded with political motivations that make the path to peace even more complex. Replacing this term with “Judea and Samaria” helps clarify Israel’s territorial claims and ensures that U.S. foreign policy accurately reflects the reality on the ground.

A Global Perspective on Truth and Accuracy

Historically, the term “West Bank” has been employed in a way that distorts the territorial dynamics of the region. For instance, the term is often used as shorthand for a Palestinian claim to the land, even though international law, particularly after the Six-Day War in 1967, does not recognize such claims without negotiation. By framing the debate through the lens of historical truth—using the term “Judea and Samaria”—we set the stage for a more honest dialogue about the region’s future.

The RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria Act represents a critical step in reframing the conversation around Israel’s territorial rights. By honoring Israel’s biblical and historical connection to the land, the United States can play a role in bringing more truth and clarity to a conflict that has long been marred by distortion and political gamesmanship.

In the end, adopting “Judea and Samaria” is not about denying anyone’s history or rights; it is about restoring a truthful narrative and acknowledging the legitimacy of Israel’s claim to the land. The RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria Act is a call for a more honest, more respectful, and more accurate discussion about one of the most sensitive and important regions in the world today.