S.384 - 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
S.384, the "Retiring the Egregious Confusion Over the Genuine Name of Israel's Zone of Influence by Necessitating Government-use of Judea and Samaria Act" or 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. This applies to land annexed by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War. The bill includes exceptions for international treaties and agreements, and allows the Secretary of State to waive the prohibition if deemed in the U.S.'s interest, with a report to Congress required within 30 days.
Expected Effects
The immediate effect would be a change in terminology used by the U.S. government regarding the specified region. This could signal a shift in the U.S.'s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may also require revisions to existing legal documents and government materials to comply with the new terminology.
Potential Benefits
- Potential strengthening of the U.S.-Israel relationship by aligning terminology with Israel's preferred usage.
- Clarification of U.S. government's position on the status of the region for some observers.
- Could be seen as a symbolic gesture of support for Israel's claims to the territory.
- May lead to a more consistent application of U.S. foreign policy in the region, according to proponents.
- Could simplify communication with Israeli counterparts who use the terms "Judea and Samaria."
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential alienation of Palestinians and Arab nations who view the term "West Bank" as reflecting the disputed nature of the territory.
- May complicate U.S. efforts to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by signaling a bias towards Israel.
- Could be perceived as undermining international law and UN resolutions regarding the status of the occupied territories.
- The exception for international treaties and the waiver provision may create confusion and inconsistencies in U.S. policy.
- May require significant resources to update government materials and train personnel on the new terminology.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the U.S. Constitution is primarily related to the powers of Congress and the Executive Branch in conducting foreign policy. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. The bill could be seen as an exercise of this power to define the terms used in U.S. foreign policy. However, the bill also grants the Secretary of State a waiver, which could be seen as delegating legislative authority to the executive branch. The First Amendment is not directly implicated, although the mandated language could be argued as a form of government speech.
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).