Is "occupation" a dirty word?

[Art Vandelay]

It seems to be a mantra for Palestinian apologists, like it somehow justifies their acts.

"Palestinians are trying to kill Israelis"
"Occupation!"

"Palestinians just voted in a bunch of terrorists"
"Occupation!"

"Palestinians refuse to acknowledge Israeli's right to exist"
"Occupation!"

The attitude seems to be that occupation is an inherently evil act, and the mere fact that Palestine is occupied justifies efforts to "free" it from occupation, even if those efforts include terrorism. How is occupation, in and of itself, a justification of anything? Are occupied people, by definition, justified in resisting? After WWII, would the Germans have been justified in resisting their occupation? Occupation is an almost inevitable part of war. If either side advances at all into the other side's territory, that territory will be occupied. So really what this comes down to is "Palestinians are justified in being at war with Israel because Palestinians are at war with Israel". With that sort of logic, is it no wonder the conflict won't end?

Don't try to hijack this into an issue of whether the occupation is justified. The focus for this particular thread is: Is just the fact that there is an occupation, WITHOUT referencing any particulars of the occupation, enough to be an argument to support Palestinian militarism?

 

[slingblade]

Is just the fact that there is an occupation, WITHOUT referencing any particulars of the occupation, enough to be an argument to support Palestinian militarism?

No. But no one, aside from you, is claiming that there is only one justification for Palestinian militarism.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the Israel/Palestine situation.

Is it complicated?

If yes, the chances of there being just one reason for it are nil.

 

[Art Vandelay]

No. But no one, aside from you, is claiming that there is only one justification for Palestinian militarism.

I never said that there is only one. And other people do cite the occupation in isolation.

 

[slingblade]

I never said that there is only one. And other people do cite the occupation in isolation.

Yes, you did. You asked if "just the fact," which any speaker of English knows means "one," "singular," "only."

Whatever.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Don't try to hijack this into an issue of whether the occupation is justified. The focus for this particular thread is: Is just the fact that there is an occupation, WITHOUT referencing any particulars of the occupation, enough to be an argument to support Palestinian militarism?

If you believe a people have the right to self-determination and you define a people to be a cohesive self identifying group then the answer is yes the Palestinians have also the right to resist occupation.

Obviously your question is little bit limited in utility as it does not address anything about what actions are appropriate in resisting occupation.

(And it appears you do not wish to explore that avenue since you have explicitly excluded discussion on what the "occupation" consists of so it is not possible to state what actions by the Palestinians are justified by that occupation.)

 

[andyandy]

The attitude seems to be that occupation is an inherently evil act, and the mere fact that Palestine is occupied justifies efforts to "free" it from occupation, even if those efforts include terrorism. How is occupation, in and of itself, a justification of anything? Are occupied people, by definition, justified in resisting? After WWII, would the Germans have been justified in resisting their occupation? Occupation is an almost inevitable part of war. If either side advances at all into the other side's territory, that territory will be occupied. So really what this comes down to is "Palestinians are justified in being at war with Israel because Palestinians are at war with Israel". With that sort of logic, is it no wonder the conflict won't end?

Interesting post. First off if we start with a definition of "occupation" - as

Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=occupation

....and then look at the fundamental motivator for internal resistance to occupation - ie nationalism

Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism

So the question is really over whether nationalism is a justifiable motivator for action....in this case the aspiration of national independence from foreign domination.
I think that any cursory glance through our history would confirm the importance that people place with identity - whether that's been tribal, national, regional or religious, and as such it shouldn't be a surprise that nationalist sentiment is stirred through occupation.
But to decide whether or not that chosen action is "justified" requires a value judegement on who is "right" or "wrong" - and also what is acceptable action for a resistance - whether it be "just" or not....

Are occupied people, by definition, justified in resisting?

I think you could say that you would generally expect occupied people to resist occupation - but i'm not sure you can generalise as to whether or not resistance is universally "justified" - because that's ultimately a subjective judegement

 

[Tony]

The attitude seems to be that occupation is an inherently evil act, and the mere fact that Palestine is occupied justifies efforts to "free" it from occupation, even if those efforts include terrorism. How is occupation, in and of itself, a justification of anything? Are occupied people, by definition, justified in resisting?

Would you resist if America was being militarily occupied by another country?

 

[andyandy]

Would you resist if America was being militarily occupied by another country?

and what type of resistance would be justified.....?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's a very dirty word.

That's why it's so hot to whisper it in bed!

"Hey, get ready for the occupation, baby!"

 

[Art Vandelay]

Would you resist if America was being militarily occupied by another country?

If I pick a number, will it be prime? Yours is a completely meaningless question.

Yes, you did. You asked if "just the fact," which any speaker of English knows means "one," "singular," "only."

So.. to ask whether X does Y is to declare that nothing but X exists? If I had asked "Would just one American soldier be enough to invade Iran?", I would be declaring America to have only one soldier?

If you believe a people have the right to self-determination and you define a people to be a cohesive self identifying group then the answer is yes the Palestinians have also the right to resist occupation.

"Self-determination"... a rather broad coincept, isn't it? Wouldn't this line of argument mean that no country has the right to invade another, regardless of the provocation? If "self-determination" includes attacking another country, does that other country not have a right to violate that "self-determination"?

 

[KelvinG]

Would you resist if America was being militarily occupied by another country?

Oh, I'm sure most people would instead attempt to negotiate a peace agreement and split the country in two.
The Americans get to keep half, and country X that invaded gets the other half.
Then everyone would be happy, right?

 

[gnome]

"Occupation" as I see it is maintaining a military presence and authority on an area against the consent of the native population.

It can sometimes be justified in the name of defense; but it is inherently confrontational. A solution that satisfies the need for security without a forcible presence would generally be preferable to indefinite occupation. Such a solution does not always offer, of course.

 

[jimtron]

If I recall correctly even Bush 43, when speaking about the U.S. and Iraq, said no one likes to be occupied. I would think more often than not people would want to resist any or nearly any occupation (as others have said).

eta:

"Palestinians are trying to kill Israelis"
"Occupation!"

Both sides have suffered to a degree that is unfathomable to me; I sympathize and am criticial of both sides, and I don't see this as a "good guys" vs. "bad guys" situation. That said, as has been pointed out, occupation is not the only reason Palestinians resort to violence. In response to the quote above, I would say both sides are killing each other, and last I checked (not too recently) there were 3 times as many Palestinian casualties.

This land (like most land in the world) has been fought over for millenia. I can see how the Palestinians might feel that Israel was created on top of them. I can also see how Israelis feel that they are entitled to the land.

Art, how should one determine who deserves to live in a particular area?

 

[Tony]

If I pick a number, will it be prime? Yours is a completely meaningless question.

Yours is an extremely blatant and pathetic dodge tactic. I'm confident people will see through it.

 

[zenith-nadir]

While no person on earth desires to be occupied one must look at why East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank became occupied.

Israel didn't decide one day to occupy East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank "cuz it wanted the land", that is total propoganda. Israel occupied those territories after it won a war in the effort to stop the constant attacks by A) the Palestinians, B) the Syrians, C) the Jordanians, D) the Egyptians - see: The Six Day War. See those folks were trying to destroy Israel...the founding principles laid out in the Palestine National Charter - which predates the "occupation" - called specifically for Israel's destruction....and they were really trying to do it.

 

[jimtron]

Yours is an extremely blatant and pathetic dodge tactic. I'm confident people will see through it.

I will say that I thought this was a fair and on-topic question:

Would you resist if America was being militarily occupied by another country?

 

[Mycroft]

Israel didn't decide one day to occupy East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank "cuz it wanted the land", that is total propoganda. Israel occupied those territories after it won a war in the effort to stop the constant attacks by A) the Palestinians, B) the Syrians, C) the Jordanians, D) the Egyptians -

Good point.

In saying that the "occupation" justified violent "resistance" it removes from consideration why such an occupation would exist to begin with, and what obligations the "occupied" might have in ending it nonviolently.

 

[Beerina]

Good point.

In saying that the "occupation" justified violent "resistance" it removes from consideration why such an occupation would exist to begin with, and what obligations the "occupied" might have in ending it nonviolently.

I'm also not sure violent resistance against an "invading" democracy, in support of restoring a totalitarian dictatorship, is in any way equivalent to the exact opposite, people violently resisting a dictatorship for the purpose of restoring (or creating) freedom.

 

[zenith-nadir]

In saying that the "occupation" justified violent "resistance" it removes from consideration why such an occupation would exist to begin with, and what obligations the "occupied" might have in ending it nonviolently.

Had the Palestinians/Syrians/Jordanians/Egyptians not tried to destroy Israel PRIOR TO the "occupation" then perhaps no one would have been occupied. Since they "rolled the dice" and tried to destroy Israel... and lost....the result was the occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank.

 

[gnome]

Had the Palestinians/Syrians/Jordanians/Egyptians not tried to destroy Israel PRIOR TO the "occupation" then perhaps no one would have been occupied. Since they "rolled the dice" and tried to destroy Israel... and lost....the result was the occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank.

It is unfortunate that Israelis chose to settle in these territories during the duration of this conflict. First, it makes it easier to argue that defense is not their only interest (even if it really is!)... and second, it reduces the options available for resolving the conflict, thus extending it. After that, any deal involving giving the land back necessitates kicking people out of their homes. IMO it was a huge mistake (or unconscionable opportunism) to take that step. Lives have been lost because of this choice--and I say this as someone who is primarily sympathetic to the Israeli cause.