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

61–69 of 69 posts

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

#61

Post by meric »

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…

He is saying Taiwan is asserting China is a part of Taiwan, with the ROC government in control, not unifying with PRC.

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

#62

Post by rdl »

tomjen3 wrote: post #41
youngerdryas wrote: post #7

I hereby declare Quebec free.

You do that. Nobody wants Quebec.

It could end up like Lesotho, or worse, like Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, or Venda. (the trick to setting up independent states to get rid of territory seems to be setting up several at once, which all cross-recognize each other, so you can claim they're each recognized by "several states". Maybe ditch the Maritimes at the same time?

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

#63

Post by circuiter »

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…

I find the source, the subject matter, and the motive of the letter to be rather questionable.

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

#64

Post by will_brown »

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 is this a failure?

I am offering a objective standard based on the international community where UN authorized the use of force in one example (which i believe violates the UN charter)and where the other is not a member state. Compare that with a post WW2 era where former colonies throughout the world became independent states simply through "self determination" and democratic elections. The double standard is again attributable to change in international norms, again this creates a problem because the international community does not want to codify their own position that they are unwilling to recognize a democratically elected government.

>Who are we in other courtries to say what's wrong?

"We" should not be referring to individuals with opinions but the international community and I think most would argue the international community has a duty to create international law, norms and customs or in your words say what is wrong behavior.

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

#65

Post by 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.

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

#66

Post by maaku »

bitcartel wrote: post #60
xiaoma wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

"One China" means different things when spoken by the KMT and by PRC.

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

#67

Post by maaku »

tellarin wrote: post #49
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No organization is apolitical.

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

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

#68

Post by xiaoma »

bitcartel wrote: post #60
xiaoma wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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.

Post reply on HN