Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of materials that use the term West Bank, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7552 is a new rule that says people working for the U.S. government can't use the name "West Bank" in their documents and should instead use "Judea and Samaria," except in special cases. If they have to use "West Bank" for an important reason, they need to explain why to Congress.
Summary AI
H.R. 7552 aims to stop U.S. government materials from using the term "West Bank" and instead use the historical names "Judea and Samaria" for territories annexed by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. The bill restricts the funding for any documents using "West Bank," while allowing exceptions for international agreements or if deemed in the national interest by the Secretary of State, who must explain such decisions to Congress within 30 days. Additionally, the bill mandates changes to various U.S. laws and acts, replacing "West Bank" with "Judea and Samaria" in legal texts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled 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," aims to change how the United States government refers to a specific region in the Middle East. Currently, this area is commonly known as the "West Bank," but the bill proposes that U.S. government documents and policies should instead use the terms "Judea and Samaria." The bill also outlines amendments to existing U.S. laws to reflect this change and provides circumstances under which the Secretary of State could waive the prohibition of using the term "West Bank."
Summary of Significant Issues
There are several notable issues surrounding this proposed bill. First, the requirement to use "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" introduces politically sensitive terminology that is not widely accepted internationally. This change could bias the United States' stance on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and potentially disrupt diplomatic relations.
Moreover, the prohibition against using federal funds for materials that refer to the region as the "West Bank" raises questions about its practicality and could hinder clear communication in international forums where "West Bank" is the accepted term. The provisions allowing exceptions and waivers by the Secretary of State add a layer of complexity that might lead to inconsistent application and administrative challenges.
Finally, making amendments across multiple laws to replace the term "West Bank" could lead to geopolitical tensions, considering the international community's varied perspectives on the region's name and status.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the public, the bill embodies broader geopolitical themes that influence international relations and U.S. foreign policy. If enacted, it could lead to changes in how government bodies discuss and engage with international issues related to Israel and Palestine. For ordinary citizens, this might mean encountering these new terms in government communications and media, potentially leading to confusion or misinterpretation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as political leaders and diplomats, this bill might alter the dynamics of negotiations and discussions. It positions the United States more closely with a narrative that aligns with certain Israeli perspectives, potentially alienating Palestinian stakeholders and other international entities supportive of the "West Bank" terminology. This could make diplomatic resolutions more challenging.
On the other hand, supporters of Israel who advocate for these historical terms might view the bill favorably as a recognition of their stance. However, this could draw criticism from global observers who see the United States as partaking in a contentious labeling that has significant implications for peace efforts in the region.
In summary, while the bill aims to resolve perceived confusion over naming conventions, it instead brings to the foreground numerous political and diplomatic complexities that could resonate across international relations, impacting both U.S. citizens and the broader global community.
Issues
The directive in Section 2 to use historical names 'Judea and Samaria' instead of 'West Bank' is highly contentious and could lead to significant political and diplomatic issues, as this terminology is not internationally recognized and could bias U.S. foreign policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The prohibition on the use of materials that refer to the area as 'the West Bank' in Section 3(a) could limit flexibility in international diplomatic communications, especially in contexts where 'West Bank' is a widely recognized term.
The language in Section 3(a) about the types of communications and materials affected by the prohibition may be overly broad, leading to potential confusion and unintended restrictions across numerous government functions.
The exemption and waiver provisions in Section 3(b) and 3(c) create potential for inconsistent application of the policy, as the criteria for exception ('international treaties or agreements') and waivers ('in the interests of the United States') might lead to ambiguity and varying interpretations.
Replacing 'the West Bank' with 'Judea and Samaria' across multiple U.S. laws in Section 4 could exacerbate geopolitical tensions, as the naming of territories in international legislation may not align with the perspectives of the international community.
The Act's title includes politically sensitive terms, which implies a geopolitical stance and may lead to controversy or perceived bias in language (Section 1).
The lack of clarity regarding the implementation and impact of the directives in Sections 2 and 3 raises concerns about potential confusion or inconsistency in government communications.
Requiring the Secretary of State to submit an explanation for waivers to Congress as outlined in Section 3(c)(2) might impose an administrative burden, especially if waivers become frequent.
Frequent amendments to multiple acts to replace a term could lead to inefficiencies and make tracking changes cumbersome (Section 4).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act provides its short title, allowing it to be officially called 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 simply the “RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria Act”.
2. Sense of Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section expresses Congress's opinion that the U.S. government should refer to certain lands annexed by Israel from Jordan in 1967 as "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank," with "Judea" being the area south of Jerusalem and "Samaria" being the area north of Jerusalem.
3. Prohibition on use of materials that use the term West Bank Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a rule that bans using government funds to create or distribute any documents or statements referring to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank," except for commitments related to international treaties. The Secretary of State can override this ban if they believe it benefits the United States and explain their reasons to Congress within 30 days.
4. Conforming changes to United States law Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to several U.S. laws where the term "the West Bank" is being replaced with "Judea and Samaria". These changes affect the wording in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Taylor Force Act, and other related legislations.