

Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'   - will_brown
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22395494

======
tokenadult
This issue came up a few times before in discussion on Hacker News. A little
known fact is that "facts on the ground," even entries in reference books or
labeling on maps, can be taken in international law to indicate acquiescence
to territorial claims by other countries (or to indicate assertion of hostile
claims by the country in which the reference books or maps are published).
This is why some countries with extensive programs of censorship censor maps,
dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites, and whatever else is in reach of the
government censorship program to make sure that private publications fall in
line with the government's official position on territorial claims. (I have in
my home office English-language and Chinese-language reference books published
in Taiwan during the period of the military dictatorship there, which censor
references to the existence of the independent country of Mongolia and assert
province names for the mainland region of China that have been obsolete since
1949. Taiwan has since considerably loosened up on this kind of censorship
after democratizing, but territorial claims vis a vis China are still a very
sensitive issue.)

In countries without official programs of widespread censorship, government-
published maps of other countries will still say things like "Boundary
representations are not authoritative" and private publishers of maps in free
countries will have notes near disputed boundary lines like "actual line of
control; boundary in dispute" and so on. This is a pretty big deal in
international law, so it is a somewhat big deal that Google, a business
corporation organized under United States law, has changed its indication of
the status of Palestine, even if only for the Google domain registered for the
.ps top-level domain. The United States government may feel the need to make a
formal statement to the effect that this action is the action of a private
business corporation and does not represent an official view of the United
States government.

~~~
bitcartel
Here's something few people seem to be aware of - Taiwan agrees it is part of
China (aka 'One China' [1]).

While we often hear about the government in Beijing claiming the island as the
sovereign territory of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), we don't hear much
about the claims made by the government in Taipei that the mainland is the
sovereign territory of the Republic of China (ROC).

Although both sides dispute who is the sole legitimate government of a single
China, they both agree that territorially it includes the island of Taiwan.
Meanwhile, a recent poll suggests that for people on the ground, opinion is
divided.[2]

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy>

[2]
[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2...](http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2003561079)

~~~
xiaoma
> _Taiwan agrees it is part of China (aka 'One China' [1])._

That is laughably wrong. I say that as someone who's spent half his adult life
in Taiwan. Only a very, very slim minority of Taiwanese feel that Taiwan is
"part of China". Even the KMT (國民黨）has long given up that stance.

The tension is between those who want to officially (i.e. UN) recognized
independence and those accept the status quo of de facto independence in the
interests of avoiding a hopeless war with China. Taiwan has never been part of
the the PRC. While a significant _minority_ of Taiwanese people hope for a
future democratic China, those in favor of unifying with the PRC measure at
under 5%.

~~~
bitcartel
> Even the KMT (國民黨）has long given up that stance.

Are you sure? Just a few days ago, the President (and leader of the KMT party)
said:

 _No matter where we are, here or abroad, we’ll by no means push for ‘Two
Chinas’, ‘One Taiwan, one China’ or ‘Taiwan independence’._

[http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-
to...](http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-to-abide-by-
one-china-policy)

~~~
xiaoma
Yes, I am sure. Taiwan was my home for many years, most of my best friends
live there and I still follow the local media in the local language and
watched election campaign speeches for multiple candidates in each of the last
two elections in person. What about you?

KMT leaders prior to Ma pushed for unification. During Ma's campaign in 2008,
he repeatedly emphasized that he would not support any sort or unification or
annexation. This created a rift between him, Lian Zhan and the rest of the old
guard, but without that assurance he couldn't have won.

"The one China policy" has a specific political meaning -- it's intentionally
ambiguous as to what "China" is (a country or a civilization). While the
policy isn't exactly loved by most in Taiwan, it allows the peaceful
continuance of Taiwan's de facto independence. Any formal break from the
policy to formalize this independence is extremely dangerous as the article
you linked to points out:

 _"Beijing has threatened to invade in response to any such declaration."_

Also, it's important to point out the role of the US. The US has pledged to
treat Taiwan as a country in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, but has stated
that any support or defense of Taiwan could end in the case of a formal
declaration of independence.

------
joshguthrie
It's interesting to read this post as a "western world citizen" whose
country's boundaries rarely (if never) change (well, I don't think a big part
of HN ever heard of its country boundaries ever changed in his lifetime).

It felt eye-opening when I stumbled on this issue some years ago. We were
building a Google Maps app for a branch of the UN and my boss told me we
needed to hide the map's boundaries and use the ones supplied by the UN. I was
rather intrigued and he explained how the boundaries used by Google sometimes
clashed with the UN's recognition of boundaries for some countries. So I went
and loaded the KML using the UN-official boundaries.

Of course, I see some were quick to jump the "Google is taking too much power"
bandwagon, but a story is not just on HN to be told but also to engage our
minds to reflect. And to me, the story here seems to be about digital
recognition of countries beginning to be almost on par with international
recognition, and how the digital world, that we thought (hoped?) would abolish
the frontiers between men, is still taking these frontiers in account.

~~~
justincormack
Borders change quite a bit, Yugoslavia broke up, and Czechoslovakia too, both
of which I am sure many HN readers are from. East and West Germany merged,
even more HN readers from there.

~~~
joshguthrie
Guilty on this one, especially since Germany is a neighboring country and I
didn't even think of it. Which illustrates my point: when our borders never
changed, we can have a tendency to take them for granted and not imagine that
other countries are struggling to have theirs recognized.

------
harichinnan
If it was this easy, google should take a survey in asia and redraw the map of
every country there. A map of India with Line of Control with Kashmir and Line
of Actual control with China as real borders should permanently resolve the
issues between three nuclear armed nations.

There is more. The island between Japan and China. The island between Russia
and Japan. Also for Sri Lanka create a map of Tamil nation with Jaffna as
capital. And Taiwan..

Wish it was so easy...

~~~
tellarin
Hell, that would even solve the disputes between the USA and Canada [1].
</sarcasm>

1-
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canad...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States)

Edit: Just adding some context, the disputes mostly deal with islands and
areas of the sea. Canada, other 163 countries, and the European Union join the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; but the USA does not.

------
mbayer
Well done Google. Palestine is and always has been a country, occupation or
not. To call it by any other name is simply ignorant and uneducated.

------
BrianEatWorld
Part of me (the part that watches Better Off Ted) thinks this is just another
change along the lines of the recent Gmail minimalism.

The new logo which drops the word "territories" looks much cleaner and
switching to Palestine from Palestinian really tightens things up.

~~~
msoad
I don't think it's as simple as that. For example there was a debate about
Google Farsi[1]. It used to be Google Parsi which is closer to Persian culture
but then it changed to Google Farsi which is new name of Parsi (Persian
language) after adopting Arabic alphabet by Persians.

Farsi vs. Parsi has tons of difference. People got mad and happy for this
decision. I don't believe this kind of decision is made by design team.

[1] <https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=fa>

------
purephase
Wow, odd coincidence here. I was just taking a stroll through the ISO 3166-1
country lists to update our own database and noticed that they had changed it
to "Palestine, State Of".

I'm not sure when it happened, but I dutifully changed ours to match (in the
same way Google has) as following the standards orgs is generally good
practice.

------
abdophoto
Bravo Google.

------
rzimmerman
And the relevant XKCD:

<http://xkcd.com/787/>

------
Tangaroa
A relevant letter sent to the New York Times in 1975:

\---

Dear Sir:

Your newspaper frequently uses the term "Palestinian" to describe a section of
the Middle East population which is Arab, to differentiate it from Israeli
Jews. As the holder of a Palestinian Identity Card and a Certificate of
Discharge from a Palestinian Unit of the British army, I find this practice
annoying and certainly untrue...

We Palestinian Jews wore the uniform of the British Army, and on our shoulder
epaulettes the single word, "Palestine" in English. We tried to get permission
to wear Hebrew insignia, fly the Jewish flag and be recognized as Palestinian
Jews, but-no, Palestinian meant Jew and Arab, and who cared if there were
fewer than 3000 Arabs as compared to 36,000 Jews in khaki? In British Army
nomenclature, the equivalent of a GI is BOR, meaning British Other Rank. We
were formally known as POR, Palestinian Other Ranks.

So we fought the war as Palestinians, set up the Jewish Brigade as
Palestinians, and I'll be damned if I agree that only Arafat and his assassins
are Palestinians.

As a Palestinian, I was arrested by the British on suspicion of smuggling
immigrants into the country. As a Palestinian, I had the honor of commanding
the 329th Palestinian Company of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
(REME - all Jews). There were no equivalent Arab units. Once a British general
said to me, "Migawd| I have so many things to dislike you for, for being a
Jew, American born, a Palestinian-and you don't even know how to handle a
knife and fork!

So cut it out, please. Call them what you will, but not Palestinians.

Yours truly, Joe Criden

\---

Source: <http://afsi.org/pamphlets/PalestiniansKahn.pdf>

~~~
tellarin
While this helps showcase the problem in nomenclatures and how people relate
to them, I personally don't feel there was that much to this specific
claim/complaint.

The population at the 'British Mandate of Palestine' (which resulted in the
name of the unit in the British army at the time) was mostly of Arabs.
Especially if you also count parts of Transjordan that some claim where also
"Palestinian".

Agreeing to definitions is usually hard, and especially so in that region.

------
youngerdryas
I hereby declare Quebec free.

~~~
MacsHeadroom
> "In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, Icann, ISO and other
> international organisations."

Maybe corporations will start to recognize Quebec as free when the UN, ICANN,
ISO, and a handful of other apolitical organizations do too, as is the case
with the officially recognized state of Palestine.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Maybe corporations will start to recognize Quebec as free when the UN,
> ICANN, ISO, and a handful of other apolitical organizations do too

UN, ICANN, and ISO aren't apolitical organizations.

~~~
tellarin
No organization is apolitical.

~~~
maaku
Some are much closer to being apolitical: Doctors without Borders and the Red
Cross, for example.

------
ars
It's interesting how internet companies are taking authority over many things
away from official entities that nominally should have that authority.

For example owning the domain name is more important than registering a
trademark for that name.

~~~
meepmorp
> It's interesting how internet companies are taking authority over many
> things away from official entities that nominally should have that
> authority.

What authority is google taking up here? A text change on a localized website?
Nothing about the I/P conflict is changed here. Unless Google's gotten a seat
on the UN Security Council since I last read the news.

~~~
ars
The point is that these days having Google recognize your claims to being a
country is more important than having the UN recognize it (which it doesn't,
yet Google does).

~~~
raimondious
When the UN recognizes Palestine, it will be much more significant than
Google's copy change.

~~~
dragonwriter
> When the UN recognizes Palestine, it will be much more significant than
> Google's copy change.

The UN granted Palestine the status of "Non-member observer State" last year.
This status change is one of the many by international organizations with
regard to Palestine that led to Google making the "copy change" at issue here.

------
wsc981
I don't think companies should take a stance on political issues, which is
what Google is doing here.

Would actually prefer companies have totally no influence on politics at all,
but as we all know, that would be an utopia.

~~~
sp332
How could Google avoid taking a stance? Either they call it one thing or the
other. Or they could call every contested bit of land Narnia but then no one
would be happy with them.

~~~
CatMtKing
I agree. The domain name is already in political territory. Maybe if domain
names were by language instead of location...

~~~
tellarin
That would be nowhere easier.

Many languages have different names across populations. And people strongly
identify to a specific nomenclature.

Also, many people speak multiple languages, languages that cross disputed
borders, and languages spoken only by populations that want independence from
the current states where they're located (e.g. Basque).

