The Myth of ‘Occupation’

Few words in political discourse do more rhetorical work than “occupation.” It sounds legal and objective, but in practice it functions as a moral verdict—one that simplifies history, assigns blame in advance, and shuts down serious discussion.

A Legal Term Turned Moral Weapon

In international law, occupation is a narrow, temporary condition: military control of territory belonging to another sovereign, pending a final settlement. In public discourse, however, the word is used very differently. It no longer describes a situation—it decides it.

Once a territory is labeled an “occupation,” one side is cast as criminal and illegitimate, the other as passive victim. Context, history, and agency disappear.

Unequalled in its opacity among the terms related to international law, the term "occupation" is selectively and maliciously used to try to delegitmize the one country to which it most certainly doesn't apply: Israel

History Erased by a Slogan

The term collapses long, complex conflicts into a single frozen moment. Wars, rejected compromises, armistice lines, security threats, and failed negotiations are all swept aside in favor of a simple story: one side took land and refuses to leave.

That story may be emotionally satisfying, but it is rarely accurate—and it makes resolution harder, not easier.

Agency Denied

Blaming everything on “occupation” absolves local leadership of responsibility. Corruption, repression, violence, and political failure are treated as automatic consequences rather than choices. This framing is not compassionate; it is patronizing. It denies entire societies political agency.

Selective by Design

Territorial disputes exist worldwide, yet only some are relentlessly branded as “occupations.” Even more tellingly, the term quietly exempts all conquests that occurred before 1945.

Settler states formed through force and dispossession—such as Australia and the United States—are treated as morally settled, their origins linguistically invisible. The cutoff is not justice, but convenience: earlier conquests are normalized, later ones criminalized.

Used Uniquely Against Israel

Nowhere is this selectivity clearer than in the case of Israel.

Israel is labeled an “occupying power” in territories not taken from a recognized sovereign, acquired in defensive wars, governed under negotiated and partial arrangements, and repeatedly offered for peace. No other country is judged by armistice lines never meant to be permanent borders.

Here, occupation is not a critique of policy—it is a strategy of delegitimization, redefining Israel’s existence as a standing violation. Under this logic, withdrawal alone is justice, while security, negotiation, and mutual obligation are treated as excuses.

Precision Matters

Language shapes thought. When occupation is stretched beyond its legal meaning and loaded with moral finality, it stops clarifying reality and starts replacing it.

If the goal is understanding rather than accusation—and solutions rather than slogans—then precision is not optional. It is essential.