Google removes Palestine from map replaces it with Israel | Hacker News Reader

Google removes Palestine from map replaces it with Israel

breakingisraelnews.com

34 pointsthenipper19 comments

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

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

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

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.

Amusingly, the article itself quotes the very same text two paragraphs below the statement declaring that the State of Palestine doesn't exist as an entity.

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.

Seems to be unregular then: I see the borders, but I can't get the name to show up. Not unlikely that they have different views for different users/parts of the world.

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

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.

I'm amazed it's surprising to you at all - borders by definition, are inherently political.

Google's issue is that it aims to be the single source of truth on something inherently contested... no way around this issue.

Windows took out the time zone map feature because of this: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20030822-00/?p=...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

"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."

A fair solution would be to remove both states.

maps.solomon.com

The gMaps version of "here be dragons" then, I take it?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com