Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of materials that use the term West Bank, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 384 is a plan to change how the United States talks about a place in the Middle East usually called the "West Bank." Instead, they want to use old names, "Judea" and "Samaria," but they can make exceptions if very necessary.
Summary AI
S. 384 aims to stop the U.S. government from using the term "West Bank" in official materials. Instead, it requires the use of the historical names "Judea" and "Samaria" for these regions. The bill allows exceptions if needed to fulfill international agreements or if the Secretary of State waives the prohibition for U.S. interests. It also mandates changes to various U.S. laws to replace "West Bank" with "Judea and Samaria".
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill in question, titled “Retiring the Egregious Confusion Over the Genuine Name of Israel's Zone of Influence by Necessitating Government-use of Judea and Samaria Act”, seeks to change how the U.S. Government refers to a specific geographical area that has been commonly known as the "West Bank." Instead, it mandates the use of historical names, "Judea" and "Samaria," which are regions annexed by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. The bill prohibits using U.S. government funds to produce materials that refer to the area as the "West Bank," with some exceptions for international treaties. Multiple amendments to existing U.S. laws would implement these terminological changes.
Summary of Significant Issues
A main issue highlighted by this bill is the use of politically charged terminology. The directive to use "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" does not align with international norms and could lead to diplomatic strife. This change signals a specific geopolitical stance that may not receive universal acceptance. Another concern is how this alteration could affect communication, as the term "West Bank" is widely recognized globally.
The prohibition on federal spending related to the term "West Bank" introduces potential ambiguities, especially given the undefined geographical scope of "Judea" and "Samaria". The bill allows for a waiver by the Secretary of State if it's in national interest, but this could result in inconsistent policy applications. Additionally, the explanation requirement for why a waiver would be used lacks detailed criteria, leading to potential transparency issues.
Impacts on the Public and Stakeholders
For the general public, the bill may appear as a minor semantic adjustment. However, the broader implications are profound, impacting diplomatic relations and possibly altering foreign policy discourse. If implemented, this change could lead to confusion both domestically and internationally regarding official communications and documents.
For stakeholders such as U.S. diplomats and international allies, the bill introduces significant challenges. It may force diplomats to navigate complex geopolitical terrains and defend a terminology that conflicts with established international agreements and perspectives.
This legislative action could potentially benefit pro-Israel groups satisfied with the recognition of historical nomenclature. However, it risks alienating other stakeholders, such as advocates of Palestinian statehood, who could view these changes as dismissive of contested historical narratives.
Overall, while the bill brings attention to how language can reflect broader political stances, it also underscores the complexities and potential downsides of altering established terminology. As it stands, the bill could inadvertently complicate both U.S. domestic governance and international relations.
Issues
The directive in Section 2 to use the historical names 'Judea and Samaria' instead of 'West Bank' is politically sensitive and might not align with international consensus, potentially leading to diplomatic tensions and controversy.
The prohibition in Section 3 on using the term 'West Bank' could impair effective communication internationally, as the term is widely recognized and used in global contexts.
The conforming changes throughout Section 4 replace 'the West Bank' with 'Judea and Samaria', which is a politically controversial change that could imply a geopolitical stance not universally agreed upon and may result in diplomatic issues.
The bill does not define the geographical extent of 'Judea and Samaria' in Section 3, leading to potential confusion and ambiguity regarding the specific regions covered.
The waiver provision in Section 3 allows the Secretary of State discretion to bypass the prohibition, which might lead to inconsistent application and lack of uniform policy.
The explanation requirement for waiving the prohibition in Section 3 is vague, lacking clarity on the level of detail or criteria required in the explanation by the Secretary of State.
The bill does not address the financial implications, such as costs for reprinting materials or retraining employees, associated with the mandated changes in terminologies as mentioned in Section 2.
The modification of legislative language in Section 4 may overwhelm readers due to complexity and could lead to confusion or misinterpretation in international relations or legal contexts.
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 use the historical names "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" to refer to the land annexed by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, specifically identifying the areas as south of Jerusalem being "Judea" and north of Jerusalem being "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 bill section makes numerous amendments to various United States laws by replacing the term "the West Bank" with "Judea and Samaria" in multiple sections and headings of existing legislation that range from the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act.