Language is never neutral. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the words used to describe the land between the Jordan River and the 1967 armistice line carry profound historical, legal, and moral significance. Are we speaking of the “West Bank,” a politically expedient term born of mid-20th-century geopolitics, or “Judea and Samaria,” names that have echoed through millennia of Jewish history? This is not mere semantics. It is a contest over truth, legitimacy, and moral clarity.
Historical Continuity: A Jewish Connection Through the Ages
The terms Judea and Samaria are far from abstract labels. As Philologos notes in The Long Postbiblical History of Judea and Samaria1, these regions have been continuously associated with Jewish history, religion, and governance since biblical times. Judea, encompassing Jerusalem and the surrounding southern highlands, was the heart of the Judean Kingdom; Samaria, in the northern hills, was central to the northern Israelite kingdom. Archaeological findings, ancient texts, and demographic records, including Ottoman and British Mandate-era censuses, all attest to the enduring Jewish presence in these lands.
Jerold S. Auerbach, writing for JNS2, emphasizes that Judea and Samaria are not modern inventions. They reflect the historical reality of two distinct regions within the ancient Jewish homeland. This is sharply contrasted with the term “West Bank,” which emerged after Jordan’s annexation of the territory in 1948. According to HonestReporting Canada3, Jordan’s renaming served a deliberate political purpose: it erased Jewish historical ties and recast the land as an Arab-controlled territory, paving the way for competing claims and international confusion.
Even today, the historical significance of these names resonates. Israeli cities, archaeological sites, and religious landmarks bear witness to a continuous Jewish connection. The debate over terminology is therefore inseparable from the broader question of historical justice and cultural memory.
Legal Foundations: International Recognition of Jewish Rights
Beyond history, Israel’s claims to Judea and Samaria are supported by international law. As outlined by Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch4, the legal basis for Israel’s presence in these territories rests on the post-World War I international order. The 1920 San Remo Conference5,6,7 and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate8 explicitly recognised the Jewish people’s historical connection to the land and entrusted Britain with establishing a Jewish national home west of the Jordan River.
The principle of uti possidetis juris9 further reinforces this legal foundation. Under this principle, when Israel declared independence in 1948, it inherited the borders of the British Mandate, including Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. Israel’s extension of law to Jerusalem in 1967 and the Golan Heights in 1981 establishes a clear precedent for legal governance based on historical and international legitimacy.
Major General Rephael Vardi, in The Beginning of Israeli Rule in Judea and Samaria10, recounts the practical challenges Israel faced after the Six-Day War: suddenly administering a densely populated area with diverse communities, restoring civil services, and ensuring stability. This underscores that Israel’s governance has always been grounded in practical responsibility and adherence to law, not opportunistic territorial ambition.
Political and Moral Implications
The choice of terminology is inherently political. Michael Zimmerman, writing for The Jerusalem Post11, observes that the language used in media and diplomacy is rarely neutral. “West Bank” suggests an artificial, politically neutral space, while “Judea and Samaria” recognises a living historical and religious connection. Using historically accurate terms reinforces the truth and prevents the erasure of centuries of Jewish presence.
This debate is not academic. It informs U.S. congressional policy, international diplomacy, and media narratives. We note that recent U.S. legislative initiatives to replace “West Bank” with “Judea and Samaria” in official documents12,13,14,15 have sparked controversy, demonstrating that the fight over names is part of a broader struggle over narrative and legitimacy. Every map, report, or resolution that exclusively employs “West Bank” inadvertently diminishes the historical and legal foundations of Israel’s claims.
Contemporary Relevance
Understanding the historical and legal dimensions of Judea and Samaria is crucial in today’s geopolitical landscape. With hostilities, unilateral declarations, and international campaigns shaping global perceptions, accurate terminology is a small but essential step toward fairness. As UK Lawyers for Israel note in their report History and Current Status of Judea and Samaria16, misnaming the land is not simply an academic error — it has real consequences for diplomacy, education, and public understanding.
Recognising Judea and Samaria by name is an affirmation of fact, not ideology. It is an acknowledgment that historical continuity, legal rights, and moral responsibility cannot be rewritten for convenience. This clarity is vital in countering misinformation and ensuring that international debate is grounded in reality, not narrative manipulation.
Conclusion: Naming as a Moral Imperative
Names carry power. They shape perception, influence policy, and encode historical truth. In the case of Judea and Samaria, the proper use of terminology is an act of historical justice. It affirms Jewish heritage, recognises Israel’s legitimate legal rights, and provides moral clarity in a region too often defined by ambiguity, propaganda, and misrepresentation.
At the Israel Institute of New Zealand, we advocate for truth in naming because the consequences extend far beyond semantics. The words we choose matter. They reflect the reality of the land, its people, and its history. They reinforce the legal and moral foundations that underpin Israel’s sovereignty. To speak honestly is to honour the past, safeguard the present, and shape a future grounded in truth.
The world must recognise what has always been: this land is Judea and Samaria, the historic, legal, and moral heart of Israel.
To learn about the history of the name Palestine, click here.
References
- https://ideas.tikvah.org/mosaic/observations/the-long-postbiblical-history-of-judea-and-samaria?queryID=761bbe55778141926c6abb6868a0041a
- https://www.jns.org/the-west-bank-or-judea-and-samaria/
- https://honestreporting.ca/glossary/judea-and-samaria-vs-the-west-bank/
- https://jcpa.org/the-state-of-israels-legal-right-to-judea-and-samaria/
- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-san-remo-conference
- https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/172-MONOGRAPH-San-Remo-Conference-Karsh-FINAL.pdf
- https://ideas.tikvah.org/mosaic/observations/the-significance-of-san-remo
- https://thinc-israel.org/articles/the-continuing-significance-of-the-mandate-for-palestine-under-international-law
- https://israelinstitute.nz/2025/08/israel-is-not-occupying-anything-uti-possidetis-juris-international-law-and-the-myth-of-un-resolution-2334
- https://jcpa.org/article/the-beginning-of-israeli-rule-in-judea-and-samaria/
- https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/the-language-conflict-over-israel-and-judea-samaria-670617
- https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-tenney-reintroduces-recognizing-judea-and-samaria-act-and
- https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/384
- https://www.jns.org/mast-directs-foreign-affairs-committee-to-replace-west-bank-with-judea-and-samaria
- https://vinnews.com/2025/09/28/florida-bill-would-replace-west-bank-with-judea-and-samaria-in-state-documents/
- https://uklficharity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/History-and-Current-Status-of-the-West-Bank-Judea-and-Samaria.pdf
