3 ms·
It's the other way round: They have a strong incentive to define what's outside of their border (and therefore defining their border), because people living wit
by bulbar 2mo ago
It's the other way round: They have a strong incentive to define what's outside of their border (and therefore defining their border), because people living within their border would end up having more rights.
That's also the reason why they never annexed Westbank and try to get rid of the people living there.
- throw310822 2mo agoIt is also the other way around: Israel doesn't have any incentive to formally annex a territory that is full of Palestinians because that would make it more complicated to deprive them of rights (as they did with the residents of Jerusalem). But Israel also doesn't have an incentive to define a narrow permanent border and therefore renounce more territory acquisitions. For example, illegal settlements outside the internationally recognised borders are defended and taxed as territory of the State; their residents are considered residents of Israel. So the solution is to keep vague and say that borders are "contested".