Uncategorized
These states want to ban the term ‘West Bank’ and replace it with ‘Judea and Samaria’
When it comes to discourse surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, fights over word choice can be as charged as fights over the facts themselves. Is it “occupied territories” or “disputed territories”? A “security fence” or an “apartheid wall”? “Terrorist” or “militant”?
These terms often signal a speaker’s allegiances — and which historical narrative they accept as true.
Now, that semantic divide is moving from rhetoric into law.
Tennessee passed a bill last week banning the use of “West Bank” in official state documents, instead favoring the biblical names, “Judea and Samaria.” Gov. Bill Lee is expected to sign the bill into law, applying the mandate to state educational materials including textbooks and course descriptions, according to state Sen. Mark Pody, a co-sponsor of the bill.
“The use of the term ‘West Bank’ is a deliberate attempt to erase the Jewish identity of Judea and Samaria,” the bill reads, “and to obscure the deep historical, religious, and legal connections of the Jewish people to the land.”
The measure is part of a broader push by Republicans to recognize Israel’s claim to land widely considered unlawfully occupied under international law. Last year, House Republicans launched the “Friends of Judea and Samaria Caucus,” a group of Christian lawmakers who promote Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. Meanwhile, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton introduced a federal bill — with the unwieldy title “Retiring the Egregious Confusion Over the Genuine Name of Israel’s Zone of Influence by Necessitating Government-use of Judea and Samaria Act,” an acronym for “recognizing” — though the bill never made it out of committee.
Now, states are taking on the fight. Jason Rapert, founder of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers and a former Arkansas state senator, has said he is working to pass similar bills nationwide, with 15 states expressing interest so far. Among the states that introduced such legislation this year: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia.
The flurry of bills comes as violence against Palestinians in the West Bank intensifies and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accelerated the expansion of settlements, entrenching Israeli control of the region and further dimming prospects for a future Palestinian state.
That reality is now colliding with U.S. state politics, as legislators argue over the legitimacy of Israeli and Palestinian claims to the land — and how far state law should go in shaping that debate.
Each term is “loaded with political context, loaded with real significance for a dispute where people are dying,” said state Senator Jeff Yarbro, a Democrat, who testified against the bill during the Tennessee legislature’s deliberations. “We are compelling [the] use of one of those political terms. That’s a choice. It is mandated political speech, effectively.”
The bill’s origins
Yossi Dagan, head of the Shomron Regional Council, which oversees Israeli settlements in the West Bank, has spent years building support among American evangelicals to formally recognize “Judea and Samaria.”
“The lie about the ‘West Bank’ or ‘occupied territory’ must end,” Dagan said at a conference of conservative state legislatures in Indianapolis last July. “We must put the truth on the table: Judea and Samaria are the heart of Israel.”
Dagan has close ties with U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and has hosted him for multiple visits to “Samaria” as part of a broader effort to bring American officials to the region.
Sen. Pody said he was inspired to cosponsor Tennessee’s bill after taking such a trip last year with Huckabee.
“They were talking about a bill that had passed that was very similar out of Arkansas, and how that was really inspiring to the people over there [in Israel],” Pody told the Forward. “And so after we left, we knew that we wanted to do something like that in Tennessee.”
The Tennessee bill mirrors model legislation promoted by the National Association of Christian Lawmakers and leans heavily on biblical justification, stating that “the return of the Jewish people to Judea and Samaria in modern times constitutes the fulfillment of numerous biblical prophecies” — referring to the Christian Zionist idea that the Jewish state is a precursor to Jesus’ return.
“Eighty percent of the Bible stories that we read occurred in Judea Samaria,” Rapert told the Tennessee legislature. “Can you imagine someone not wanting to call Tennessee, ‘Tennessee’?”
Rapert did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to biblical reasoning, advocates for the name “Judea and Samaria” often point out that the region was not known as the “West Bank” until relatively recently. The name was popularized after Jordan annexed the territory in 1950, a move the Arab League condemned as illegal at the time. Israel took control of the territory in the 1967 War and has administered it since, with varying degrees of Palestinian self-rule in some areas.
“The more traditional things that we’ve had, that have been around for centuries, is something that I think we’re going to be more comfortable with using,” Pody said. “The West Bank has been more recent terminology.”
Today, the U.S. State Department — which uses the term “West Bank” — estimates that roughly 3 million Palestinians live in the region, alongside an estimated 465,400 Israeli settlers, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, which does not include Israelis who live in East Jerusalem in their tally.
Many Palestinians view the West Bank as core to any future Palestinian state, while Netanyahu has said “Judea and Samaria” is part of Israel’s “ancestral homeland.”
‘Co-opting Judaism’
Asked by a state representative about who opposes his bill, Rapert said those who resist using the term “Judea and Samaria” are typically “folks that support Hamas.”
But efforts to ban the term “West Bank” in official documents have drawn pushback from a broad range of voices — including some Jewish leaders who say they were never consulted on the matter.
“This is not something that has been on the agenda of the Jewish community whatsoever,” Civia Tamarkin, president of the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, told the Arizona Mirror. She added that Arizona’s resolution on the topic amounted to “co-opting Judaism and antisemitism for a Christian nationalist agenda.”
Maeera Shreiber, a rabbi and English professor at the University of Utah, voiced similar concerns about Utah’s bill, which did not make it out of committee. She said the effort appeared rooted in “a kind of sympathy for the Jewish community,” but failed to account for the diversity of views Jews hold. As a professor at a public university, she also worried about how such language mandates could shape course materials.
“If we replace it with Judea and Samaria, it really obscures the presence of Palestinian claims to the land as well,” Shreiber told the Forward. “These things happen out of misinformed, misguided goodwill, and people often don’t understand the long, dark reach.”
In Tennessee, critics raised similar concerns about erasing Palestinian identity. Anwar Irafat, an imam in Memphis who grew up in Gaza and the West Bank, said the bill ignored the millions of Palestinians who live on the land.
“I’m here because this bill tells me and my family that we do not exist,” Irafat told lawmakers during their deliberations.
State Sen. Charlane Oliver, a Democrat who voted against the measure, questioned why lawmakers were focused on the issue at all, raising concerns about the separation of church and state.
“This is not a congregation,” Oliver said on the Senate floor. “We are not here to debate scripture.”
The post These states want to ban the term ‘West Bank’ and replace it with ‘Judea and Samaria’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes
(JTA) — JERUSALEM – The United Kingdom threatened to sanction Israelis involved in West Bank settlement expansion after the Jewish state’s Lands Authority opened bids for 1,234 homes in the largely underdeveloped E1 section of the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim.
Construction in E1 “would cut across the heart of Palestine and risks separating the West Bank from East Jerusalem, which would endanger the viability of a two-state solution,” the British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said in a special statement he posted on X on Thursday.
Targeted sanctions, Miliband wrote, would be part of a series of measures his government would take. His office also summoned Israel’s charge d’Affaires Thursday to demand a closure of the bidding process, which first opened on Tuesday, and a withdrawal of the construction project altogether.
“Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution,” he wrote. Miliband has held his position for a month and is part of the new leadership Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham appointed when he took office in July.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attacked Miliband on X, stating that Britain’s “decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate.”
He said that the U.K. government’s “systematic policy of blaming only Israel while ignoring Palestinian extremism has already contributed to a massive wave of antisemitic hatred and attacks against the British Jewish community.”
The Jewish people have the same right to “live throughout the Land of Israel” just as the British people have a right to live anywhere in the U.K., Sa’ar wrote.
Plans to expand the built-up area of Ma’aleh Adumim settlement by constructing some 3,400 housing units on a largely underdeveloped hilltop within the city’s boundaries have been in place since 1994 when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister.
Israel mostly froze those plans under pressure from the international community, including the U.S., with many countries warning that building homes in E1 would harm their diplomatic ties with Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began to advance the project in earnest in 2012 to protest the United Nations General Assembly decision to grant the Palestinians the status of a non-member state and has since pushed the project forward in spurts, particularly during election seasons.
The publication of the bidding process for the homes was first announced on Tuesday and is set to close on Oct. 19, one week shy of the Israeli elections on Oct. 27. Opening the bids is a move that plays well with Netanyahu’s right-wing voter base, which opposes Palestinian statehood and believes that settlements like Ma’aleh Adumim and the E1 area should be annexed into sovereign Israel.
But the move reverberated globally, with the U.K. signing onto a joint condemnation by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, in which they warned that settlement building in E1 distanced peace and undermined the country’s international standing.
They also reminded businesses who might bid for E1 construction that they could face legal or reputational consequences, given that such companies could be in breach of international law.
Palestinian Authority Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh said he welcomed the condemnation, explaining on X that such a position “reflects the importance of the international role in confronting settlement activity and safeguarding the two-state solution.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first
(JTA) — An Argentine federal judge was removed from office Tuesday for a series of antisemitic posts on his social media accounts that constituted misconduct incompatible with his role, an impeachment panel ruled.
Alfredo Eugenio López, who headed Federal Court No. 4 in the coastal city of Mar del Plata, was removed by Argentina’s Jury of Impeachment, a special panel composed of judges, lawmakers and lawyers.
It is the first time in Argentina’s history that a judge has been removed over antisemitic remarks.
In López’s social media posts, the judge referred to the Jewish people as “a brood of vipers,” Israel as a “fictitious state” and Argentinian Jews as “foreigners.” He has also used such terms as “Zionist” and “gay” as insults.
According to the panel, the judge committed acts of “discrimination and the denial of equal rights against the Argentine Jewish community. For the purposes of these proceedings, it is particularly significant that, by acting in this manner, he shattered public confidence in his continued fitness to administer justice impartially.”The case reached the panel through Argentina’s Council of the Magistracy, based in Buenos Aires, the constitutional body responsible for the selection and discipline of federal judges.
The first complaint against López was filed in February 2025 by the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, which is the umbrella organization representing Argentina’s Jewish community. One month later, the Argentine Forum Against Antisemitism also filed a complaint. In July 2025, attorney Yamil Santoro from Apolo Foundation added another one.
In his defense, López argued that his messages were “ subjective and decontextualized interpretations of exchanges on social media, which in no way affect the administration of justice or his impartiality” as a judge. He added that his remarks were unrelated to any pending case and that he had never been recused or removed from any judicial case.
Neither Lopez nor his attorney were immediately available for further comment.
“He was removed because he simply would not stop engaging in hate speech,” jury member Alberto Maques said during a live interview Tuesday on the A24 news channel. “It is absolutely disgraceful for a federal judge to engage in this kind of conduct.”
Maques said there were 15 social media posts that he acknowledged, but more than 50 posts in which he said “outrageous things that are not worth repeating because they truly constituted hate speech.”
“This is not merely an issue of hate speech against the Jewish community. This is someone who lacks common sense,” he added, interviewed by A24 news channel.
Prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings argued that the messages were not isolated political comments but reflected a pattern of hostility toward Jews, Zionism, and the State of Israel.
“No position of authority can shield hatred. This is not a matter of punishing an opinion. It is about sanctioning repeated conduct involving antisemitism, hostility and dehumanization, conduct incompatible with the impartiality, dignity and public trust required of the judiciary,” DAIA said Tuesday in a statement.
“This case sets a precedent: for the first time in more than a century, DAIA initiated proceedings of this nature against a judge. No office is above democracy.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race
(JTA) — California progressive Aisha Wahab defeated AIPAC-backed moderate Melissa Hernandez in a congressional runoff this week, capping off a contest that had become unexpectedly tight after the pro-Israel lobby entered the fray.
The Associated Press called the race between the Democrats — who were vying to replace a disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell — a full two days after polls closed, when Wahab secured 53.1% of votes to Hernandez’s 46.9%, with 95% of ballots tallied. The gap between them grew by four percentage points from Tuesday evening, when Wahab had held a narrow 51% lead to Hernandez’s 49%.
“We stayed focused on the people, and I will fight for this district that raised me,” Wahab said in a Thursday statement, noting her journey “from foster care to Congress” in her East Bay community.
Although Wahab ended up victorious, the narrow initial margin on Tuesday shocked California’s 14th District, given that she had secured a double-digit lead in preliminary races two months ago.
But in the past few weeks, an unforeseen variable appeared to influence the trajectories of the two campaigns: a massive spending push from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee aimed at turning the tides for Hernandez.
Since the beginning of August alone, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, and other affiliated groups spent more than $2.5 million on both boosting Hernandez and denigrating Wahab with negative ads and mailers, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
“This was not a landslide for Wahab by any means,” local Democratic strategist Noah Finneburgh, who is not affiliated with either candidate, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“They narrowed the gap for sure,” Finneburgh added, referring to AIPAC. “They spent millions of dollars attacking Wahab very aggressively.”
These attacks, he explained, did not involve Israel and instead focused on divisive issues for the Bay Area, such as public safety and protecting kids.
“Negative advertising with a persuasive message can be very effective,” Finneburgh said.
In her Thursday night statement, Wahab declared that her “district cannot be bought,” describing the race as “one of the ugliest, most expensive elections we’ve ever seen.”
Prior to this influx of cash and related ads, neither AIPAC nor Israel had played a significant role in this short-lived race — which began in April following Swalwell’s resignation over allegations of sexual assault.
When the district held a special primary to seek Swalwell’s replacement on June 16, Wahab and Hernandez finished as the top-two candidates and moved on to this week’s special general runoff election.
California primaries are “nonpartisan” or “top-two” races, in which the two highest ranking candidates move on to the general election, irrespective of their parties. The top-two in this case were both Democrats, like Swalwell, in a district that the Cook Political Report deems solidly blue.
Even though Wahab will now finish the remainder of Swalwell’s term, she will have to compete with Hernandez again in the November general election for a full term that begins on January 3, 2027.
In a June 16 special primary that preceded this week’s runoff, there was still a massive gap between the two candidates, with Wahab accruing 42.8% of the votes, compared to Hernandez’s 16.8%. A separate primary for the November race, which occurred two weeks earlier, placed Wahab at 38.3% and Hernandez at 17.2%.
Wahab, who will be the first Afghan American in Congress, has focused on affordability, civil rights, education and climate change. Her campaign calls for an end to wars and “prolonged occupations” but only specifically calls out U.S. military activity in “Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.”
Though Wahab has been critical of Israel and its operations in Gaza, she has not been as vocal about the issue as many other progressive colleagues nationwide. She responded “yes” when asked if Israel was committing genocide in a primary debate, but she didn’t include Israel or Gaza in her campaign priorities.
During a recent appearance on far-right influencer Hasan Piker’s livestream, Wahab acknowledged that “it’s not a zero-sum game in the Middle East,” adding that “we can care for all people.” She also referenced a resolution she introduced last year in the California legislature, pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza but also condemning Hamas and demanding the release of the hostages.
“We talk about both Palestinians and the Israeli victims there,” Wahab told Piker. “We talk about holding the perpetrators accountable from both sides.”
Asked if she was in favor of “ending all U.S. aid to Israel,” she responded “yes,” while stressing that “humanitarian aid is important to me, too.”
Wahab has earned the backing of multiple labor unions, the California Democratic Party and Our Revolution, the group formed by Sen. Bernie Sanders to advance the progressive movement. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street also recently invested $108,000 in her campaign, according to the FEC. American Priorities, a pro-Palestinian PAC, also spent at least $200,000 on supporting her.
Hernandez has received endorsements from several police and fire unions, as well as Democratic Jewish Reps. Lois Frankel of Florida and Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Come November, Hernandez will gain one additional asset. Due to statewide redistricting, the 14th District will gain about 26,000 new voters from Dublin, where Hernandez previously served as mayor, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
But Finneburgh said he believes that Hernandez has only a minimal chance of winning that race, especially because Wahab will be heading into that election as an incumbent.
He also suggested that if “she plays her card right,” Wahab could even take some endorsements away from Hernandez.
“There’s going to be people who are going to probably move over from the Hernandez camp and back her,” Finneburgh added. “It’s going to be hard to unseat her.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race appeared first on The Forward.
