Talk:Military occupation
Modern terms[edit]
Technically settler-colonialism is a distinct process from military occupation. So, no, they're not the same thing, although they are related. Carthage (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- To give an example of the difference: the occupation of Iraq was a military occupation, but was not settler colonialism. The occupation of the West Bank is both an example of settler colonialism and military occupation. Carthage (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- With Palestine, it is a UN recognized state which military occupation is the most apt term. With Western Sahara, Settler Colonialism would be more accurate. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Current occupations[edit]
Wikipedia has a list of current occupations (List of military occupations
), which is probably a good starting point. Kashmir, which is not included, presents a conundrum, I think. Is it occupied by one, two or three militaries (Pakistan, China, India)? Kashmir is internationally recognized as part of India by the 1947 Instrument of Accession. Yet, recently as many as 1 in 8 people in Kashmir were Indian military. The argument, perhaps weak, for India being a military occupier is that it refused to allow a vote for self-determination of Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir, basically because Kashmir is majority Muslim (and hence was the exception in the India-Pakistan partition of the same year). For China, it was a convenient place to build a road (Aksai Chin). Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)