Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#51

Post by sses »

CatMtKing wrote: post #29
sp332 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That wouldn't solve or even sidestep any political issues. You've still got problems like: * ip geocoding to decide which language to serve the UI in * what do you call the languages? Chinese vs Traditional vs Simplified, or Farsi vs Parsi vs Persian, as mentioned elsewhere

And while political boundaries are messy, language boundaries are even more so. How do you decide dialect boundaries? And once you do, how do you decide which dialects get separate domains?

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#52

Post by 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

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#54

Post by tellarin »

Tangaroa wrote: post #52

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 Je…

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.

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#55

Post by smsm42 »

tellarin wrote: post #47
will_brown wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grant argues that current projects for the elaboration of >"Montevideo Plus" criteria for statehood are -- while legitimately attempting to infuse statehood with considerations that better reflect changing normative standards Basically it is the convention plus the state be democratic - but this has already proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and P…

> proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas I'm not trying to condone either government, but why is this a failure? If (I'm assuming this for the argument's sake) they were really elected democratically who are we in other countries to say that's wrong? Wouldn't that be the same as giving merit to a (hypothetical) North Korea…

Why we value democracy? What is it in this process that we think it is good when it's there and is bas when it isn't? Why we think democracy is better than monarchy, for example?

If you think about it, one answer could be - because democracy tends to possess some features we find valuable and necessary, such as respect for the rights and freedoms of people that we consider basic and unalienable, personal security from arbitrary prosecution by the government, orderly transition of power, general participation of the population in the political process, not inhibited by government restrictions, etc.

Now if you look at what happens in Gaza with Hamas, you will find very little of that. Personal rights are not respected, government is a bunch of armed thugs ruling with iron fist and violently suppressing any dissent and any competing movement (it helps little that those are another bunch of armed thugs), and in general almost no benefit of democracy except the ability to vote for whoever is already in power is available to the citizens. If this is not a failure, what is?

However, if we look into the matter even more, I'm not sure there was democratic election involved at the first place. Political fate of Gaza was decided in 2007 in violent clashes between Fatah and Hamas, and Fatah lost. It would probably have lost also if the elections were fully democratic, but what actually happened and the process that led Hamas to assume power in Gaza had almost nothing to do with democracy.

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#56

Post by tellarin »

smsm42 wrote: post #55
tellarin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas I'm not trying to condone either government, but why is this a failure? If (I'm assuming this for the argument's sake) they were really elected democratically who are we in other countries to say that's wrong? Wouldn't that be the same as giving merit to a (hypothetical) North Korea…

Why we value democracy? What is it in this process that we think it is good when it's there and is bas when it isn't? Why we think democracy is better than monarchy, for example? If you think about it, one answer could be - because democracy tends to possess some features we find valuable and necessary, such as respect for the rights and freedoms of people that we consider basic and unalienable, personal security fro…

I'm not really interested in those two specific examples used by the OP. My question was more along the lines of the beginning of your reply.

The association of the features you mention with 'our' view of democracy is part of why I personally associate "democracy" and "good".

But, for example, why is it "bad" if people democratically choose a government with values different from ours? Shouldn't the 'voice of the people' be of enough value?

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#58

Post by smsm42 »

tellarin wrote: post #56
smsm42 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why we value democracy? What is it in this process that we think it is good when it's there and is bas when it isn't? Why we think democracy is better than monarchy, for example? If you think about it, one answer could be - because democracy tends to possess some features we find valuable and necessary, such as respect for the rights and freedoms of people that we consider basic and unalienable, personal security fro…

I'm not really interested in those two specific examples used by the OP. My question was more along the lines of the beginning of your reply. The association of the features you mention with 'our' view of democracy is part of why I personally associate "democracy" and "good". But, for example, why is it "bad" if people democratically choose a government with values different from ours? Shouldn't the 'voice of the peo…

It's not "bad" per se, but the history teaches us that governments that do not share the values of personal rights and freedoms very soon devolve into the governments that are treating their citizens very badly and the citizens themselves are living very poorly. It also happens very frequently that while initial consent may be given by democratic means, very soon such consent is not required anymore by the government and it usurps the power completely and does not let the citizens to dissent and choose better government anymore, instead forcing the citizens to accept the fruits of their poor choice in the past forever, or at least until they can overthrow such government by violent means.

>>> Shouldn't the 'voice of the people' be of enough value?

Not every "voice of the people" has equal value. For example, if 100 years ago in the US white majority would vote to keep black people in slavery, would we now recognize this decision as good and legitimate? What if there were a country somewhere else right now that has majority oppressing the minority and denying them their rights and freedoms? I think we would consider it "bad", despite formal requirement of "voice of the people" being satisfied. That's why, I think, USA is a republic, and while Americans elect their leaders democratically, there are limits to what "voice of the people" could do, at least until current system of government persists.

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#59

Post by xiaoma »

bitcartel wrote: post #46
tokenadult wrote: post #10

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 exte…

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…

>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%.

Re: Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'

#60

Post by bitcartel »

xiaoma wrote: post #59
bitcartel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 independen…

> 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...

Post reply on HN