
Google removes Palestine from map replaces it with Israel - thenipper
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/73489/google-attack-deleting-palestine-maps-app/#Sr3HMwwRK3Zj1rbO.97
======
kafkaesq
_The Palestinian Journalists Front (PFJ) slammed Google for the move, stating
that the removal of Palestine’s name from the maps was an attempt by the
“Israeli scheme to establish its name as a legitimate state for generations to
come” while obliterating Palestine forever. ... PJF claimed the move was part
of an effort to distort history and geography “as well as the Palestinian
people’s right to their homeland,” and “a failed attempt to tamper with the
memory of Palestinians and Arabs.”_

 _The fact that there is no such entity as the State of Palestine did not come
up in the attack._

Objectively, there most definitely is an entity known as the State of
Palestine -- it's just that the Israel stands nearly alone in the world
disputing this designation:

 _The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn), also known
simply as Palestine, is a de jure sovereign state in the Middle East that is
recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member
observer state in the United Nations – which amounts to a de facto, or
implicit, recognition of statehood. The State of Palestine claims the West
Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt)
with East Jerusalem as the designated capital._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine)

 _The term "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" had been utilized by the UN and
other international organizations between 1998 to 2013 in order to refer to
the Palestinian National Authority; it was replaced in UN Secretariat
communications by the term State of Palestine starting in 2012, and the ISO
adopted the name change in 2013._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories)

So one would think that the ISO and UN designation would be the one that
Google would go by.

~~~
doug1001
thank you for this "annotation" to the OP; the sentence in the OP "The fact
that there is no such entity as the State of Palestine...." is intended so
clearly as a factual assertion ("The _fact_ that....") that i assumed it must
be not just correct but verifiable correct. In fact just the opposite is true.

------
pascalmemories
No Google did not. I just looked.

Not only does 'Palestine' appear on the map, there are multiple border lines
drawn, representing the various assorted claims, counter-claims and disputes
in the area.

And the cherry on the icing is that the first picture shown in the map is of
the Al-Aqusa mosque in Jerusalem, which is still technically administered by
Jordan who historically held the territory, so is arguably Jordanian (through
historic domain), Israeli (current domain), Palestinian (through their current
claim) and international by the UN intention in 1948.

I don't understand the obsession by some to bring HN into disputes like
Israel/Palestine through citing some tangential technology connection.

I think articles like this should have to be moderated before they are allowed
on and then only when they show a strong technology basis and are relevant. HN
is not your facebook wall - use your facebook account for this sort of
nonsense.

~~~
Fej
Google shows different borders to different users depending on their
locations. I don't see Palestine (I'm in the US).

------
ashaikh
It's amazing how political maps are. I wonder what method Google uses to
determine borders. Disputed borders and states must be a nightmare to deal
with.

I remember reading a while back that if two states have a border dispute,
Google rendered the border differently based on your IP address. I wonder if
that is still going on here.

~~~
elevensies
If Google's responsibility is to the vanity of governments, then it is very
political.

If Google's responsibility is to accurately represent the situation on the
ground to their users, then it may not be easy but it isn't all that
political.

~~~
xg15
Given that borders are entirely human-made constructs, the only "accurate",
non-political representation I can imagine would be to display all possible
borders at the same time.

As that isn't what happens (and would also be impractical if you actually
wanted to use the map) I think you can say that they do have to be political.

~~~
elevensies
What I'm trying to say is, if you are going to visit a certain location, the
territory belongs to whoever controls it -- and that is who you need to reckon
with.

China (PRC) says that Taiwan is a province of China, but they don't control
it. If you show up at the Taipei airport with a entry visa from the PRC, you
will find that out.

A similar but more extreme example, Google Maps says Raqqa is part of Syria,
but due to the war that isn't exactly accurate at the moment.

Determining which organization _rightfully_ owns which territory is political.

Determining which organization _actually_ controls which territory isn't
political though maybe not any easier.

~~~
dragonwriter
Both are political questions. "Political power" and "effectively exerting
control of people, including in a particular territory" are tightly-bound
concepts.

But they are _different_ political questions, and it is important not to
confuse the two.

~~~
elevensies
It is a political question for the organization that wants to maintain power
in a certain area. Assad's ability to control Raqqa is a political question.
Google's ability to identify who is in control of Raqqa, much less so.

If Google negotiates the border location with the governments, according to
the governments political needs, that is Google's choice -- Google can do this
to try to maximally satisfy the governments. This is politically complicated.

If Google wants to maximally satisfy the practical needs of _the people_ who
are actually going to the locations on the map -- all they need to do is
identify the sovereign power. Exerting control is politically complicated, but
this is not what Google needs to do, Google only needs to identify.

------
Fej
This article is clearly extremely biased; see the name _Breaking Israel News._

This article is a bit better: [http://www.inquisitr.com/3397451/google-maps-
vanishes-palest...](http://www.inquisitr.com/3397451/google-maps-vanishes-
palestine-in-favor-of-israel/)

"Google Maps will find it difficult to achieve objectivity no matter how it
addresses the disappearance of Palestine. Of the 193 United Nations member
states, 136, around 71 percent, recognize the state of Palestine. Notably
absent from this list of supporters are the United States and most of Western
Europe. However, until the UN Security Council votes to establish the nation
of Palestine, the support from various UN members for Palestine is considered
a recommendation, not statehood, according to the UN Charter."

------
cocotino
A fair solution would be to remove both states.

~~~
Roodgorf
maps.solomon.com

------
r3dBLU3
A quick search on hackernews reveals this story has been submitted multiple
times, the website in question is reposting the same material and changing the
date of the article.

