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).

> 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).

Actually, Google is (and this is covered in their announcement) following the UN and other international organizations in the wording change (which is not, on Google's part, recognition of Palestine as a State so much as recognition that it is an entity with the name "Palestine" rather than "Palestinian Territories".)

Also, the UN, as of last year, actually does recognize Palestine as a State, having accorded it the status of a "Non-member observer State". http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm

Thanks for the link.

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

> 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.

Notice Google said "In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, Icann, ISO and other international organisations."

Not only does the UN recognize Palestine as a state. But ICANN, ISO, and other international standards organizations do too.

Maps really are just lines on paper. "A text change on a localized website" is all the power you need to recognize someone's authority.

True, though recognition of someone's authority is not "taking" authority at all, which is what OP was complaining about.

One can make the argument that Google shouldn't be endorsing either side, but taking authority away from either they are not.

> One can make the argument that Google shouldn't be endorsing either side, but taking authority away from either they are not.

Referring to Palestine as an entity is (an act certain to be seen, especially by the other side, as) endorsing one sides position.

Not referring to Palestine as an entity in and of itself but instead referring to "Palestinian Territories" is also (an act certain to be seen, especially by the other side, as) endorsing one sides position.

Even having or not having a .ps localized site would meet that description.

There really is nothing with regard to the whole Israel/Palestine issue that is not going to be seen as endorsing one side or the other.