Why is the term “occupation” used in both your scenarios?It's not a dog whistle.
To clarify, Israel "occupies" the land in the same sense that the United States "occupies" the Dakotas, that is, the people took possession of the land and continue to rest upon it.
I also said that the Israelis are there by divine warrant and command - no pejorative intent in either case.
Gotcha, yet the term “occupation” has become (via successful Paleostinian propaganda) synonymous with Israeli “Settlement” activity.
Most people never ask what the boundaries of this so-called occupation are. For example, if the PLO was created around 1960, what “occupied lands” were they demanding Israel withdraw from BEFORE the 1967 Six Day War? The “occupation” means a single Jew living in Israel. They want Israel to “FREE GAZA” but Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
Nobody talks about the Turkish OCCUPATION of Northern Cyprus or the Chinese OCCUPATION of Tibet, the US OCCUPATION of Indian lands. No, ONLY the Israelis are occupiers according to world bodies like the UN.