Immediately after the invasion of Grenada by the U.S. during the Reagan Administration, I, as an unknown Vietnam vet, was moved to write an opinion piece denouncing the administration's obvious intention to exploit the invasion's success to picture the Democrats as the party of surrender. The piece was picked up by the Washington Post, whose liberal editors were happy to take advantage of my status as a "simple" Vietnam vet as an excuse to run an article criticizing the administration. However, there was one problem. I referred to the invasion as an "invasion" and, as the senior editor I dealt with explained to me, the administration didn't like people to refer to the invasion as an invasion and, I inferred, the supposedly almighty Post did not like to be yelled at by the Reagan administration over "trivia". So, at the Post's request, I changed "invasion" to the administration's own hilarious euphemism: "pre-dawn vertical insertion"--including the quotation marks to get the message across.
I'm sure the Post and the Times today, not to mention other media outlets, like to avoid ruffling feathers when it's "unnecessary". As Confucius explains, this path has unfortunate consequences: “If names are not rectified then language will not flow. If language does not flow, then affairs cannot be completed. If affairs are not completed, ritual and music will not flourish. If ritual and music do not flourish, punishments and penalties will miss their mark. When punishments and penalties miss their mark, people lack the wherewithal to control hand and foot. Hence a gentleman’s words must be acceptable to vocalize and his language must be acceptable as action. A gentleman’s language lacks anything that misses.”
It seems to me that the phrase "occupation" was at least at one point in time intended to convey that a military presence in a foreign state was more limited than the traditional implication of a foreign military presence: conquest. In other words, the term "occupation" implied that the presence of American troops would be temporary, and that the US was not attempting to formally annex Haiti. Obviously, the word has understandably developed negative connotations since then, but if I were a foreign national I would surely prefer an occupation to an annexation.
This brings me to a slightly different point: the term "Occupation" has been used to describe Israel's control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights. While this term still has plenty of currency among those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, it seems to me that it is no longer accurate. Israel has controlled these territories for 54 years, and nearly 750,000 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (all settlers who lived in Gaza prior to the infamous 2005 "pullout" were relocated at American taxpayer expense to the West Bank.) Giant Jewish civilian settlements exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Clearly, the intention of Israel is not to temporarily keep troops in these regions with an intent to remove them at a later date. Israel has annexed these territories. It is not an occupation. These territories are part of Greater Israel, and Greater Israel is an Apartheid State.
This is important because the solution to the problem depends on what the problem is in the first place. If the problem is an "occupation" then the answer is simple: remove the foreign troops. Rightwing Zionists would contest the political status of these territories, with the likes of Ariel Sharon and John Bolton claiming they should be annexed by Jordan and Egypt, thus preventing the creation of an independent Palestinian state. But still, that would "end the occupation" from their perspective at least. But if the problem is "apartheid" then the answer is also simple: grant Arabs living in these regions full Israeli citizenship including full civil and political rights.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations these days frequently employ both "end the occupation" and "apartheid" rhetoric. I see the point they're making and most people cannot be faulted for not thinking through the specific problems with using both terms. But it has to be one or the other.
Caity Johnstone notes that for the Empire, narrative management is everything.
Centuries before that, Confucius noted that "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". Sometimes phrased as follows: "If you seek justice on earth, you must start by insisting on exact definitions of words". As to whether that merely breeds lawyers is left as an exercise for the reader.
Immediately after the invasion of Grenada by the U.S. during the Reagan Administration, I, as an unknown Vietnam vet, was moved to write an opinion piece denouncing the administration's obvious intention to exploit the invasion's success to picture the Democrats as the party of surrender. The piece was picked up by the Washington Post, whose liberal editors were happy to take advantage of my status as a "simple" Vietnam vet as an excuse to run an article criticizing the administration. However, there was one problem. I referred to the invasion as an "invasion" and, as the senior editor I dealt with explained to me, the administration didn't like people to refer to the invasion as an invasion and, I inferred, the supposedly almighty Post did not like to be yelled at by the Reagan administration over "trivia". So, at the Post's request, I changed "invasion" to the administration's own hilarious euphemism: "pre-dawn vertical insertion"--including the quotation marks to get the message across.
I'm sure the Post and the Times today, not to mention other media outlets, like to avoid ruffling feathers when it's "unnecessary". As Confucius explains, this path has unfortunate consequences: “If names are not rectified then language will not flow. If language does not flow, then affairs cannot be completed. If affairs are not completed, ritual and music will not flourish. If ritual and music do not flourish, punishments and penalties will miss their mark. When punishments and penalties miss their mark, people lack the wherewithal to control hand and foot. Hence a gentleman’s words must be acceptable to vocalize and his language must be acceptable as action. A gentleman’s language lacks anything that misses.”
It seems to me that the phrase "occupation" was at least at one point in time intended to convey that a military presence in a foreign state was more limited than the traditional implication of a foreign military presence: conquest. In other words, the term "occupation" implied that the presence of American troops would be temporary, and that the US was not attempting to formally annex Haiti. Obviously, the word has understandably developed negative connotations since then, but if I were a foreign national I would surely prefer an occupation to an annexation.
This brings me to a slightly different point: the term "Occupation" has been used to describe Israel's control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights. While this term still has plenty of currency among those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, it seems to me that it is no longer accurate. Israel has controlled these territories for 54 years, and nearly 750,000 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (all settlers who lived in Gaza prior to the infamous 2005 "pullout" were relocated at American taxpayer expense to the West Bank.) Giant Jewish civilian settlements exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Clearly, the intention of Israel is not to temporarily keep troops in these regions with an intent to remove them at a later date. Israel has annexed these territories. It is not an occupation. These territories are part of Greater Israel, and Greater Israel is an Apartheid State.
This is important because the solution to the problem depends on what the problem is in the first place. If the problem is an "occupation" then the answer is simple: remove the foreign troops. Rightwing Zionists would contest the political status of these territories, with the likes of Ariel Sharon and John Bolton claiming they should be annexed by Jordan and Egypt, thus preventing the creation of an independent Palestinian state. But still, that would "end the occupation" from their perspective at least. But if the problem is "apartheid" then the answer is also simple: grant Arabs living in these regions full Israeli citizenship including full civil and political rights.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations these days frequently employ both "end the occupation" and "apartheid" rhetoric. I see the point they're making and most people cannot be faulted for not thinking through the specific problems with using both terms. But it has to be one or the other.
Caity Johnstone notes that for the Empire, narrative management is everything.
Centuries before that, Confucius noted that "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". Sometimes phrased as follows: "If you seek justice on earth, you must start by insisting on exact definitions of words". As to whether that merely breeds lawyers is left as an exercise for the reader.
Perhaps your best piece yet.
Sorry if I am harping on this stuff, but two articles on how words are misused, specifically, the word "corruption".
https://indica.medium.com/how-the-us-legalized-corruption-c478b5ad0655
https://indica.medium.com/nytimes-the-word-youre-looking-for-is-corruption-a48ed109ac70
I have no connection with the author, other than a couple of appreciative emails.