The Long Brief: Judea's Settlers
Judea, Samaria, and the settlers who hold the ridge while the world smears them.
We’ve been talking in the Daily Brief this week about Iran shoving more money, weapons, and “advisers” into Judea and Samaria — the same way it fed Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Islamic Republic isn’t confused about what this territory is for: a future launchpad into Israel’s heartland. The only people pretending it’s about “human rights” are the ones enjoying the grants.
So let’s pull the camera back.
This Long Brief maps the ground that almost nobody in the international system is honest about: Judea and Samaria, the so-called “West Bank.” The ridge that decides whether rockets can sit over Ben Gurion. The Jewish communities the world calls “settlements” and “settler violence” as if a besieged farming family outside Hebron is the problem, not the men being paid a salary to stab them.
If you want to understand what Iran is investing in, what the PA is gaming for, and what the settlers are actually doing on that ridge, you need more than headlines. You need the architecture:
Judea, Samaria, and the Settlers on the Ridge
The territory in question has two competing names (with deep implications). There is the historical term, Judea and Samaria. And a newcomer, The West Bank—which entered into common usage after 1948, when Jordan occupied and annexed this region on the West Bank of the Jordan river. In 1950, Jordan officially renamed Judea and Samaria as the West Bank during its time of occupation (an act only recognized by a few countries). This new term was a sterile geographic label that was intended to sever any Jewish historical reference. Over time, it became the dominant term internationally—by governments, diplomats, and media. Even after 1967 when the territory came back into the Israeli orbit, this remained the name in common international usage.
In contrast, Judea and Samaria are the age-old Hebrew/Biblical names for the hill country, evoking the heart of ancient Jewish homeland. These terms were common in usage up until 1948. For example, British Mandate-era documents and even early UN discussions referred to Samaria and Judea in describing the region. Israel’s government officially revived the usage of Judea and Samaria after 1967, embedding the historical claim that this land is the ancestral patrimony of the Jewish people.
Pro-Israel commentators argue that the prevalence of West Bank erases Jewish history and sovereignty claims. They note that the term West Bank was invented by an occupying power (Jordan) explicitly to dissociate the land from its Jewish roots. By using this term, the world, perhaps (in some cases) unwittingly, reinforces the notion that the area is distinctly Arab or “Palestinian,” with no inherent Jewish connection. As one Israeli observer put it, “When Israeli journalists use ‘West Bank,’ they’re adopting the terminology of those who deny Jewish history… telling the world this land is separate from the Jewish homeland.” In this view, language is a weapon. Whoever defines the name of the territory influences perceptions of legitimacy and ownership. Thus, referring to Judea and Samaria simply as the West Bank is seen as a form of narrative warfare—one that obscures millennia of Jewish history (the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Jewish holy sites, continuous presence, etc.) and undermines Israel’s claim of sovereign rights.
It is worth noting that even within Israel, usage of the terms varies. Officially, Israel’s administrative label is the “Judea and Samaria Area,” and many (most?) Israelis prefer those historic names. Yet in practice, even Israeli officials (including Prime Minister Netanyahu) sometimes say “West Bank” when speaking to international audiences. This dual usage reflects the ongoing tug-of-war between historical narrative and political reality. In recent years, there have been U.S. political moves to encourage adopting “Judea and Samaria” in official language (e.g. proposals by lawmakers to replace “West Bank” in U.S. documents), highlighting how charged the terminology has become. Ultimately, the dominance of “West Bank” in global discourse signals the prevailing view of the area as occupied foreign territory, whereas “Judea and Samaria” asserts a Jewish indigeneity and claim—a claim that the term West Bank pointedly ignores.
International Framing on the Global Stage
