Incarnation in a backwater of history -why?

It's a common  question or observation, as seen here:

 why would ... God ... pick a poor, fugitive Palestinian Jew, misunderstood by his own family, persecuted and harassed by those of his own religious tradition and living in, and ultimately executed by the most oppressive, secular empire of his time?... why would God pick a largely powerless individual, in a weakened culture in an occupied state to make his point about who the Messiah was and what he would bring?

But reading it I found myself returning to a thought that has been growing in my mind over the last few years but I think I have only expressed verbally a couple of times. First my reaction was that actually, I don't think God did 'choose' those things, at least not first off: I think that God chose Christ (very Barthian of me). God's choice is that God-in-Christ should be incarnate in human history. That choice creates the history. It's as if Christ is the centre point of creation and the whole of space and time (both preceeding and anteceeding) emenates from Christ (and most especially the Resurrection). This would mean that it's not that God chose Roman occupied Palestine etc, rather that God's choice of the Christ implies -indeed creates- a history and geography which we identify as first century Judea etc to cradle and enact the choice of the Christ.

I'm hoping to refine that a bit more and it relates to my posts about the Cross as Eikon of forgiveness, so hopefully I can do the join-up at some point, conceptually.

So I'm not taking issue with this post Morf Morford: New Testament Anti-smackdown - Red Letter Christians so much as the common trope which Morf uses, actually, to good effect.