With today’s discerning consumer demanding that their wearable tech be as functional as it is fashionable, the HUAWEI WATCH GT 5 Series steps boldly…
Israel claims Google’s recognition of Palestine undermines peace efforts
Israeli authorities have lodged a request urging Google to reconsider its decision to list Palestine among its selection of localised search pages. By listing the territory, says Israel, Google is implicitly recognising Palestine as a state.
Since 1 May the company’s Google.ps listing has read “Palestine”, whereas previously it read “Palestinian Territories”. At the time, the Israeli foreign ministry said expressed concerns at Google’s intent. Now however, the country’s foreign minister Ze’ev Elkin has taken things a step further, suggesting that Google could be undermining efforts at achieving peace in the region.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Elkin’s request to Google says that the change in the way it views Palestine is “not only mistaken but could also negatively impinge on the efforts of my government to bring about direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority”.
“I would be grateful were you to reconsider this decision since it entrenches the Palestinians in their view that they can further their political aims through one-sided actions rather than through negotiating and mutual agreement,” he added.
In an interview with the BBC last week, Google’s Nathan Tyler said that the internet giant decided to make the change to the listing after consulting “a number of sources and authorities.”
“In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, ICANN [the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], ISO [International Organisation for Standardisation] and other international organisations,” Tyler said.
For its part, the Palestinian authority thinks the move is a “step in the right direction”. Elkin however thinks that it runs contrary to Google’s policy of openness in communication.
“Google has brought about so many positive changes in the world by promoting connections between people and between peoples,” he wrote. “This decision, however, is in contradiction to such aims, and distances the parties from real dialogue.”
