House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing shows sharp split over legal status of Judea and Samaria

Three witnesses at a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing offered sharply different accounts of the legal and strategic status of "Judea and Samaria," a term many officials use for the West Bank, leaving members with contrasting policy options.

Professor Eugene Kantorovich, identified in the record as a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told the panel that the territory is "largely synonymous with the term West Bank" and argued that under a rule he described as the doctrine of uti possidetis (rendered in the record as "jutipotidetis juris") "a new country automatically inherits the borders of the last top level administrative unit in the area." He said that, on that basis, Israel "has a strong sovereign claim" to the territory that traces to mandatory Palestine and therefore disputed claims about "belligerent occupation" should be reexamined in that legal frame.

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, grounded his testimony in historical and religious assertions, telling the committee that "Judea And Samaria is the historic Jewish homeland" and citing biblical sites and centuries‑long Jewish presence. Klein warned of security consequences from withdrawals, citing Gaza as an example, and said roughly "500,000 Jews living in Judea And Samaria," arguing that control of the highlands is vital for Israel's defense.

Dr. John Alterman, the Brzezinski Chair in global security and geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, emphasized the policy tradeoffs and the limits of unilateral action. He said the situation combines "ancient history, modern security threats, and deeply held religious beliefs," and urged U.S. policymakers to "resist steps that foreclose future options," to "preserve space for negotiation," and to focus on improving daily life for people on both sides.

Members pressed witnesses on legal analogies, contemporary maps and on‑the‑ground control. Chairman Lawler walked members through an Area A/B/C map, explaining that Area C comprises what he described as "over 60% of the land" and is under Israeli civilian and security control, and asked witnesses how that breakdown should shape congressional deliberations. Ranking Member Sherman and others questioned historical analogies — for example Dr. Kantorovich's comparison to Crimea — and probed whether historical claims should alone determine modern borders.

The hearing did not produce a consensus. Kantorovich recommended treating sovereignty claims through the specific international‑law doctrine he cited; Klein framed the issue as an affirmation of Jewish historical and religious rights tied to security imperatives; Alterman counseled against unilateral measures that could foreclose negotiated solutions. The committee adjourned after members were invited to submit additional questions for the record.