
The words we choose to describe a place carry echoes of history, and even of competing narratives. In particular, place names can be particularly powerful and contentious in the Middle East, with its constant tides of ethnic and religious conquest. Few place names embody this more profoundly than “Judea and Samaria,” a compound appellation deeply embedded in the history and religion of the Jewish people, yet intensely controversial in contemporary discourse.
For many centuries, “Judea and Samaria” was more of a biblical reference and less of a geopolitical term. But today it is increasingly part of modern Israeli parlance, referring to the land between the Judean mountains and the Jordan River, generally excepting East Jerusalem, that was won by Israel in the 1967 war. Outside of Israel, this area is usually called the West Bank, a name bestowed by Jordan during that country’s occupation of it following the 1948 war. Today, “Judea and Samaria” (in Hebrew, Yehudah VeShomron) is the official Israeli name of the captured territory of some 2,000 square miles, divided into areas A, B and C, with varying degrees of Israeli control.
The term “Judea and Samaria” has never been merely a geographic marker and is deeply intertwined with Jewish history, explains Rabbi Jack Bemporad, a professor of interreligious studies at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. After the death of King Solomon in 931 BCE, the Kingdom of Israel broke into two parts: the southern kingdom of Judah (later Hellenized to Judaea), with its capital in Jerusalem, and the northern kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The northern kingdom would fall to the Assyrians around 721 BCE, and the southern kingdom would succumb to the Babylonians around 586 BCE.
The destructions of these two kingdoms were recorded in the Bible, as were prophecies that Jews would return and reunite them, solidifying their importance. “In the books of the prophets, many of the prophets themselves specifically say that all of the people who went into exile will return to the destroyed kingdoms, and they will reestablish a country that includes both Israel and Judah,” says Bemporad. This vision forms the bedrock of the Jewish connection to the land, underscoring the enduring historical and religious association of Jews with Judea specifically, and particularly in the Western imagination.
This sentiment was expressed in English and American political discourse long before the advent of political Zionism. More than two centuries ago, John Adams, for example, recognized this deep connection. In a letter written in 1819 to the American diplomat and playwright Mordecai Manuel Noah, Adams pondered the return of Jews to their ancestral lands, writing: “Farther I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites…and marching with them into Judea and making a conquest of that country and restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.”
The events of the 20th century, however, dramatically altered the usage and perception of “Judea and Samaria.” American-Israeli historian and linguistic maven Hillel Halkin suggests that, in the context of spoken Hebrew, there are essentially three periods: pre-1948; 1948-1967; and the years since. During the first period, the only real Hebrew word for the area would have been Yehudah VeShomron, referring to the ancient names of the destroyed kingdoms and roughly corresponding to the geographic location. (Although, Halkin notes, one sometimes also finds Shomron referred to as harey Ephraim, “the mountains of Ephraim.”) Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan annexed the area and renamed it ha-gadah ha-ma’aravit, or “the West Bank,” for its location along the Jordan River. It was generally shortened to ha-gadah, or “the Bank.” During this second period, usage of the biblically inspired Yehudah VeShomron was generally confined to right-wing circles, while the new nomenclature, adopted by the left-wing Israeli elite, served mostly to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan.
“I think the people who use it in America tend to be people who are more right of center.”
In the third and current period, the two place names and their usage have become linked with a political outlook, with Yehuda VeShomron representing a more right-wing vision of Israeli rule over the territory, while ha-gadah is associated with the peace camp. The 1967 Six-Day War was the pivotal moment in the re-emergence of “Judea and Samaria” among those who saw the potential for Jewish settlement and political control of the area. Menachem Begin, upon becoming prime minister in 1977, spearheaded the official re-adoption of the phrase, says David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It was Begin who saw that it was really justifying Israel’s biblical claim.” This re-embrace was further highlighted in the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, in which the area was called “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew version of the text, demonstrating its official acceptance within Israeli diplomatic usage. The Arabic and English versions both used “West Bank.”
In recent years, however, “Judea and Samaria” has made inroads into the mainstream Israeli lexicon, and has become less ideologically charged, says Makovsky. “They just call it Yehuda VeShomron, no matter where you are on the spectrum—certainly right but also center and left,” he says. He draws a parallel to the way Israelis refer to Nablus as Shechem, its biblical name, rather than its Arabic name, not necessarily as an irredentist label but just because that’s the biblical reference point. Similarly, Jewish Israelis don’t call Jerusalem or Hebron by their Arabic names. This suggests that for many Israelis, using Yehuda VeShomron is simply a natural, historically rooted way of referring to the region, rather than a deliberate political statement.
Ori Nir, a Moment contributor, former reporter for Haaretz and the Forward and a former spokesperson for Americans for Peace Now, sees it differently, calling the growing usage of “Judea and Samaria” part of “the normalization of occupation in newspaper language. Settler framing has taken over Israeli media,” he says, explaining how news reports will refer to places in the West Bank by their proximity to Jewish settlements (e.g., x km from Ariel rather than y km from Nablus). “For the most part, Israelis used to reference the West Bank or ‘the territories.’” For Nir, the linguistic shift indicates a clear evolution in Israeli discourse. “It was once the case that saying ‘Judea and Samaria’ would automatically identify you with part of the right-wing ideological movement, but all that has changed since the Second Intifada.” Nir credits that period of intense violence between 2000 and 2005 with solidifying the common usage of “Judea and Samaria” in Israel, even if its underlying political implications remain.
Meanwhile, in the United States “Judea and Samaria” hasn’t lost as much of its political charge, and its usage remains a signal of belief in or justification for Jewish sovereignty over the area. “I think the people who tend to use it in America tend to be people who are more right of center,” Makovsky notes. “Certainly, it is to justify a biblical claim. Most other people just use ‘the West Bank.’” Sadly, usage has divided along party lines. The Biden administration spoke of “the West Bank” while the Trump administration has made it clear that it prefers “Judea and Samaria.” This summer, while visiting the Israeli settlement city of Ariel, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he would work to stop the use of the term “West Bank” at the federal level, instead promoting the exclusive use of the term “Judea and Samaria.”
Both in the United States and in Israel, “Judea and Samaria” is a sort of palimpsest, with layers of biblical history and ancient kingdoms visible under modern political struggles. Wherever and whenever it is used, it’s wise to recognize the traces of its multifaceted past and its present implications.