H.R.902 - Retiring the Egregious Confusion Over the Genuine Name of Israel’s Zone of Influence by Necessitating Government-use of Judea and Samaria Act; RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.902, also known as the "RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria Act," seeks to mandate the U.S. government's use of "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" in official documents and communications when referring to the territory annexed by Israel from Jordan in 1967. The bill prohibits the use of federal funds to produce materials using the term "West Bank," with exceptions for international treaty obligations and waivers granted by the Secretary of State under specific conditions.
The bill also amends several existing laws, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Taylor Force Act, and others, to replace "West Bank" with "Judea and Samaria." This change reflects a symbolic shift in U.S. policy regarding the disputed territory.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 31, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R.902 would change the terminology used by the U.S. government regarding the specified region. This could signal a shift in the U.S.'s stance on the status of the territory.
The practical effects include changes to official documents, briefings, and communications. It may also influence how the U.S. engages in diplomatic efforts related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Potential Benefits
- Could be seen as a sign of support for Israel's claims to the territory, strengthening the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
- May align U.S. terminology with that used by some Israelis and their supporters, fostering better communication.
- Could be viewed as correcting a perceived historical inaccuracy in the naming of the region.
- Could potentially lead to increased investment and economic activity in the region if the change in terminology is interpreted as a sign of U.S. support for Israeli settlements.
- The bill includes a waiver provision, allowing the Secretary of State to act in the best interests of the United States, providing flexibility.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could alienate Palestinians and other Arab nations, damaging diplomatic relations and potentially destabilizing the region.
- May be seen as undermining international law and the established consensus on the status of the occupied territories.
- Could complicate peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians by signaling a bias towards Israel.
- The change in terminology may be perceived as insensitive to the historical and cultural significance of the term "West Bank" for Palestinians.
- The bill could be interpreted as an endorsement of Israeli settlement activity, which is widely considered illegal under international law.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Congress has the power to legislate on foreign policy matters. However, the bill's potential impact on international relations and treaty obligations raises questions.
Specifically, the bill's potential conflict with existing international agreements could raise concerns under the Treaty Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2). The bill's impact on freedom of speech is likely minimal, as it pertains to government speech rather than restricting private expression, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.
Ultimately, the constitutionality of the bill would likely depend on judicial interpretation of its impact on the President's foreign policy powers and the nation's treaty obligations.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).