Supporters of the Israeli occupation have been on a high since the comeback of former President Trump, their sense of empowerment gesturing towards a more assertive approach to language use in discussing the region. Those standing against annexation retort that such language alterations represent the advancement of a directly political agenda. It has been widely acknowledged, internationally, that settlements in the occupied area cross the line into illegality. The return of Donald J. Trump to the political arena has sent ripples of rejuvenation through to right-leaning politicians in Israel and the U.S., all sharing a common endorsement of the Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.
Deservedly or undeservingly, this territory has long been viewed by Palestinians and the international community as forming the backbone of a potential future Palestinian state. In a bewildering move, Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate set forth bills on the last Friday. These documents would forbid the casual use of the term ‘West Bank’ in official U.S. documents, substituting the term with ‘Judea and Samaria’. These biblical labels for the region, which are all-too-common within Israeli borders and bureaucracy, intend to replace the currently accepted designation.
The suggestion of language supplanting is a symbol of fortifying and legitimizing Israel’s historical, though questionable, claims to territory captured from Jordan during the Six-Day War of 1967. The territory has been harshly held under military occupation since that time. The mistiming of this proposition is noteworthy, as it contrasts sharply with the tension in the region, amplified by Israeli military performing fierce raids under the guise of terrorism eradication.
Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas-based Republican, dived headfirst into the fray with the statement that the ‘legal and historic rights of the Jewish people to Judea and Samaria’ reach back millennia. According to him, the United States should break free from the use of the ‘politically charged term West Bank,’ though critics argue that the alternate proposed terms carry their own partisan message.
Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, a New York-based Republican and another advocate of the bill, also took the bold step of revealing a recently assembled congressional team. This ‘Friends of Judea and Samaria’ Caucus is intended to push forward policies propelling Israeli attributes to these controversial territories. Through the very acts of advancing this legislation and assembling this group, they hope to redouble Israel’s questionable claim to the territory.
Ms. Tenney, having initially brought this proposal forward last year, is reintroducing the legislation amidst the transformed environment of Washington. It’s undeniable that former President Trump displayed an unmistakable strength of support for Israel. A narrow majority of Republicans now hold the reins of power in the House and Senate, and have collectively shown favor towards the Israeli expansionist agenda.
During his first term, Trump even proposed the unthinkable — the Israeli annexation of a significant portion of the occupied West Bank. Critics continue to express concern over how such apparent endorsement from U.S. top tiers might enable severe actions and drastic decisions by foreign governments. Unfortunately, the situation continues to evolve, with these ill-advised steps only contributing to the tense scenario on the ground.
Many have questioned the motives behind such bold language changes and legislative moves. Are these actions really about ensuring the recognition of Israeli sovereignty, or are they more focused on furthering a political agenda, one that relies heavily on providing divisive, inflammatory rhetoric instead of seeking real solutions to this longstanding conflict? These questions remain unanswered while the continues to rise.
Resorting to ancient terminology, presumably to enforce a right of possession based on biblical era claims, shows the extent to which lawmakers are willing to go, avoiding any confrontations with the disturbing realities. On a broader canvas, U.S. lawmakers appear to be using language as a diplomatic tool, rather than focusing on the historical injustices and the pleas for human rights.
In the midst of all this, it’s the average Palestinian who pays the price, their hopes for a secured state further suppressed. Yet, despite strenuous opposition from the international community on the legality of the occupation, these proposed laws continue to crop up, fanning the flames of an already highly volatile situation.
This grandstanding does nothing to help find a resolution to the ongoing conflict, and does everything to undermine the belief in a future where two states peacefully co-exist. The legislation not only misrepresents international law but also sends a disappointing message to peace-seeking communities both within and beyond the Israeli and Palestinian territories.
It remains to be seen if any constructive dialogue will come out of this phase of political posturing. There is a slim sliver of optimism that a genuine commitment to peace might somehow emerge from beneath the rhetoric. However, history shows us that such hopes often shatter under the weight of political gains and self-interest serving agendas. Whether Biden and Harris will show greater wisdom than their predecessors is yet to be seen, albeit their track record suggests a return to form is rather unlikely.
While the world watches on, every move made in Washington and Jerusalem is sure to send ripples through the international community. The stakes are incredibly high, and that means there is little room for error. In this politically charged environment, it’s important to remember that at the heart of this conflict are people whose lives are profoundly affected by these seemingly far-off political games. Decisions made today will reverberate for generations to come.