We introduce the notion of geopolitical bias -- a tendency to report different geopolitical knowledge depending on the linguistic context. As a case study, we consider territorial disputes between countries. For example, for the widely contested Spratly Islands, would an LM be more likely to say they belong to China if asked in Chinese, vs. to the Philippines if asked in Tagalog? To evaluate if such biases exist, we first collect a dataset of territorial disputes from Wikipedia, then associate each territory with a set of multilingual, multiple-choice questions. This dataset, termed BorderLines, consists of 250 territories with questions in 45 languages. We pose these question sets to language models, and analyze geopolitical bias in their responses through several proposed quantitative metrics. The metrics compare between responses in different question languages as well as to the actual geopolitical situation. The phenomenon of geopolitical bias is a uniquely cross-lingual evaluation, contrasting with prior work's monolingual (mostly English) focus on bias evaluation. Its existence shows that the knowledge of LMs, unlike multilingual humans, is inconsistent across languages.