-
but.... It seems back to front. And I don’t understand why?
They're not mutually exclusive.
If you have a search and read through the origins of each of the wars you see a trend of attacks on Israel followed by a retaliation which includes some form of land grab.
Some you can reasonably say have some security/strategic based legitimacy like the Golan Heights*. Others are clearly opportunistic consolation of territory based on a colonial mindset.
*although idk if that still stands up in modern warfare, or why you have to annex it rather than some sort of UN backed DMZ
hugo7-
I think my confusion comes from the fact that… Israel is not really under threat? It’s David and Goliath. It’s holding a midget at arm’s length and kicking them in the nuts as they land the odd punch to the thighs.
I’m not saying that condones or condemns either side’s actions; I just find it to be the opposite of what the “agreed” narrative is.
Unless I misunderstood your reply, in which case I’m sorry - it’s been a long, erm, year at work!
Ben689908
I want to ask a question which will make me seem wet behind the ears and might also, unfortunately, offend some. Maybe not.
Anyway, happy to be green and educated. Not so happy to cause offence, but here we go.
The narrative* is that Israel is defending its right to exist (under threat of the opposite by Palestine/Hamas), but as far as I can see - from looking at territorial maps over time - it is the existence of Palestine, in no other form than ghettos, that is really under threat.
It seems back to front. And I don’t understand why?
*Unless it is exactly that; a narrative.