Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of materials that use the term West Bank, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 902 wants the U.S. government to stop using the name "West Bank" in official papers and instead use the old names "Judea" and "Samaria" for those places. This change would mean that documents can't get money if they use "West Bank," except when dealing with other countries.
Summary AI
H.R. 902 aims to stop the United States government from using the term "West Bank" in official materials. Instead, it suggests using the historical names "Judea" and "Samaria," divided by Jerusalem. The bill prohibits funding for any official documents that use the term "West Bank," unless it relates to international treaties. The bill also proposes changes to existing U.S. laws to reflect this terminology change.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, H. R. 902, aims to prohibit the use of the term "West Bank" in official U.S. government materials, advocating instead for the historical names "Judea and Samaria" to be used when referring to the land annexed by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War. The bill also includes conforming amendments to U.S. laws to ensure consistent terminology across legal texts. Exceptions to this prohibition are provided for in the context of international treaty obligations, and a waiver can be granted by the Secretary of State if it's in the national interest.
Summary of Significant Issues
A significant issue with the bill is its potential to complicate diplomatic relations. The term "West Bank" is widely recognized internationally, and replacing it with "Judea and Samaria" could disrupt communication and understanding. The directive for government documents to use specific historical names could be seen as a shift in political stance, potentially influencing international diplomatic relations. The Act's title uses subjective language, which may come across as lacking neutrality and contribute to political controversy.
The requirement for the Secretary of State to provide explanations for any waiver of the prohibition is another area of concern due to its vagueness, potentially leading to inconsistent applications. Furthermore, the bill’s broad changes could lead to significant administrative burdens and costs as government documents and legal texts would need to be updated to reflect the new terminology.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill could impact the public by altering the way official U.S. documents and communications refer to a contentious region, thus affecting public understanding and discourse. The terminology shift could promote political biases, influencing public perception and awareness of international issues related to Israel and its neighbors.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For diplomats and international relations professionals, the bill presents a potential hurdle in engaging with international stakeholders, as it deviates from terminology that is widely recognized and utilized in global negotiations and agreements. For advocacy groups and communities with different views on Middle Eastern politics, the bill might either be seen as a long-needed correction of historical names or an unnecessary complicity in political disputes.
The administrative burden placed on government agencies in making these changes could redirect resources from other priorities, affecting efficiency and leading to possible delays in other areas of government function. Additionally, entities that rely on consistent terminologies for educational or informational purposes may find themselves having to adjust their materials, which could be both costly and time-consuming.
In conclusion, while the bill attempts to make a clear statement on the U.S. approach to terminology within its official documents, the broader implications may lead to significant costs and diplomatic challenges, as well as varying perceptions among different stakeholders invested in Middle Eastern affairs.
Issues
The prohibition on using the term 'West Bank' in Section 3 might limit clear communication, as this term is widely recognized internationally, potentially complicating diplomatic relations and public understanding.
The directive in Section 2 for government documents to refer to the area by the historical names 'Judea and Samaria' could influence the U.S.'s political stance and impact international diplomatic relations.
Section 1's use of subjective and politically sensitive terms in the Act's title, such as 'Retiring the Egregious Confusion', could be perceived as lacking neutrality and lead to political controversy.
The requirement in Section 3 for the Secretary of State to provide explanations for waivers is vague, lacking details on criteria, which could lead to inconsistent application of the prohibition.
Conforming changes in Section 4 imply a U.S. political stance that could spark international controversy and diplomatic concern, as 'Judea and Samaria' may not reflect an international consensus.
The changes necessitated by Section 4 could incur significant administrative costs and require updates to official documents and resources, affecting government resource allocation.
The bill's lack of explicit clarification or rationale for these terminology changes, as seen in Section 4, may lead to misunderstanding or questioning from stakeholders and international observers.
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 the Act identifies the short title, stating that it may be referred to as either 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 “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 the land annexed by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War by its historical names "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank," with areas south of Jerusalem called "Judea" and those north called "Samaria."
3. Prohibition on use of materials that use the term West Bank Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has proposed a rule that prevents government funds from being used to create materials referring to Judea and Samaria as the “West Bank,” unless required by international agreements. The Secretary of State can waive this rule if it's in the U.S.'s interest and informs Congress within 30 days.
4. Conforming changes to United States law Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section involves changes to several U.S. laws, amending references from "the West Bank" to "Judea and Samaria" in various legal texts, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Taylor Force Act, and others. These updates are meant to ensure consistent terminology across related legislation.