SB 59: It’s “Judea and Samaria”, not the “West Bank”

In further unserious legislating, rookie Senator John Carley (R-29/Piedmont) Senate Bill 59, a woke-for-Israel bill that would require state agencies to say “Judea and Samaria”, not “West Bank”.

The Israeli Knesset passed a similar measure last year to assert its dominance over the land it took back from Jordan in 1967:

Replacing the term ‘West Bank’ with the term ‘Judea and Samaria’ will express the legislator’s recognition of the historical right of the Jewish people to its land, and will rectify a historical injustice that was created by foreigners. This change conforms to the general trend of strengthening the Israeli linkage to the region and safeguarding the Jewish people’s historical rights [explanatory note to Correction of Terms in Legislation Bill (Judea and Samaria) 2024, in press release, Knesset News, 2025.02.12].

Calling the West Bank “Judea and Samaria” is not entirely geographically accurate, but it panders to the Israeli right-wing:

The use of “Judea and Samaria” is associated with the right wing in Israeli politics, which rejects the call for a two-state solution that aims to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By contrast, the term “West Bank” has much wider recognition, having been enshrined in international treaties, such as the Oslo Accords between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

…Although “Judea and Samaria” draws upon the historical use of “Judaea” and “Samaria,” the term, as defined by the Israeli government, does not align precisely with the geography of those regions. The traditional regions of Judaea and Samaria extend well beyond the West Bank and include localities, such as Beersheba and Caesarea, that lie outside the West Bank. This discrepancy exists because the West Bank’s borders were defined solely by an armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 rather than being based on historical, geological, or demographic considerations. Overlaying the modern political conception of the West Bank with terminology rooted in Jewish history emphasizes the importance of the West Bank to the Jewish people, even if Judaea and Samaria, as historically understood, do not map neatly onto the 1949 borders. But the use of “Judea and Samaria” is controversial, because it unilaterally applies a term specific to Jewish history to a territory where most of the population is not Jewish. It is favored by people who assert that the Jewish people have a historical right to settle and annex the West Bank as the “heartland of the homeland.” However, supporters of a two-state solution, in which the core of a negotiated Palestinian state would be located in the West Bank, continue to use “West Bank” as it is internationally defined [editors, revised and updated by Adam Zeidan, “What Does the Term ‘Judea and Samaria’ Mean?” Britannica.com, retrieved 2026.01.12].

Perhaps surprisingly, Senator Carley shows some respect for higher education and exempts postsecondary instructors from having to rewrite their teaching and research materials. But every other document produced by a state agency—administrative rule, briefing, communication, guidance, material, press release, or work product document—will be forbidden from saying “West Bank”.

A quick check of state websites finds references to the “west bank” of American Island in the definition of Lyman County’s boundaries and the “west bank” of the Missouri River in a hunting unit in Gregory County. SB 59 refers only to the land adjacent to Jordan and will not place Fort Pierre in Judea or Samaria.