On Sept. 23, 2021, Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the “Two-State Solution Act” to “to preserve conditions for, and improve the likelihood of, a two-state solution that secures Israel’s future as a democratic state and a national home for the Jewish people, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state.” Yet, news coverage of Levin’s proposed legislation omitted crucial details and relevant history.

POLITICO, hours before the bill dropped, offered an “exclusive look.” Writing for the magazine’s National Security Daily brief, reporters Alexander Ward and Quint Forgey detailed the proposed law, which currently has 18 co-sponsors.

The act asserts that “only the outcome of a two-state solution can both ensure the state of Israel’s survival as a democratic state and a national home for the Jewish people and fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.” This language isn’t unusual, or surprising. But what’s interesting about Levin’s proposed legislation are the numerous false and misleading claims contained in the bill—many of which are uncritically echoed by Ward and Forgey.

The act, for example, refers to the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria), “East Jerusalem” and Gaza as “occupied territories”—and calls for them to be referred to as such in official U.S. policies, communications and documents. These areas, Levin’s legislation asserts, are “occupied Palestinian territories” and, accordingly, the establishment of “Israeli settlements” there are “inconsistent with international law.”

Yet, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) has frequently noted, a sovereign Palestinian Arab state has never existed. Rather, the status of the territory is, at best, disputed. Its status is to be resolved by negotiations anticipated by UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accords, the 2003 international “road map,” and related diplomatic efforts.

Indeed, the co-authors of Resolution 242, US Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, US Ambassador to the United Nations Arthur Goldberg, and British ambassador Lord Caradon made clear, both then and later, that Jews and Arabs both had claims in the territories, and that no national sovereignty over them had been recognized since the end of Ottoman rule.

Several news outlets, such as the Washington Post, have even noted as much in corrections that were prompted by CAMERA. The Wall Street Journal, for example, even acknowledged on May 16, 2020: “Under the Oslo accords, sovereignty over the West Bank is disputed, pending a final settlement.” By calling the areas “occupied” and “Palestinian territories” both Levin, as well as POLITICO, are effectively prejudging an outcome and, if unintentionally, rendering the need for negotiations—which Levin and his organizational backers like J Street claim to support—moot.

Additionally, there is a legal basis for Jewish claims to the land. As CAMERA has documented (see, for example, “The West Bank—Jewish Territory Under International Law”), Israel has a foundation for asserting sovereignty over the area. Additionally, the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, adopted later by the United Nations, calls for “close Jewish settlement on the land” west of the Jordan River in Article 6. The UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80, upholds the Mandate’s provisions. The 1920 San Remo Agreement and the 1924 Anglo-American Convention also enshrined Jewish territorial claims in international law.

Yet, these legal arguments are completely ignored by both Levin and POLITICO. Unfortunately, this isn’t surprising. J Street, which has endorsed Levin, consistently omits this relevant history. And, in his previous occupation as a reporter for Vox, so did POLITICO’s Ward. Other relevant history is also omitted.

For example, Jews are from Judea and Samaria, an area that only in the last half-century or so has been referred to as the “West Bank.” The Jewish presence in the land of Israel predates that of the Arab and Islamic conquests in the 7th century — by thousands of years. And that presence has been continuous. In Jerusalem, for example, Jews have constituted a majority of the inhabitants since the 1840s.