Google Officially Recognizes Palestine: Eric Schmidt and Obama, Same Fight?

From now on, Google.ps will display the term “Palestine” rather than “Palestinian territories.” It may seem like a minor detail, but it means a lot to Israel. Is it the role of Google, a private company, to interfere in international relations? We discuss this with Maxime Pinard, researcher at the Institute for International and Strategic Relations.

When an international company offers its services, it must be careful with the names it uses, as some may shock or, in more serious cases, provoke economic and political tensions.

Indeed, territories, borders and seas can have several designations according to the geostrategic interests of the states concerned. Just as diplomats are aware that semantic choices can have major political consequences, so certain companies linked to the new information technologies and communications sector are no longer simply economic powers: They can also deliver a political message.

Google Aligns Itself with the UN’s Position

On May 1, 2013, the American search engine Google decided to update all its services, henceforth speaking of “Palestine” rather than “Palestinian territories” — as was the case up until now. So, on the www.google.ps homepage, below the U.S. company’s logo, the word “Palestine” now appears in Arabic.

No doubt anticipating the reactions from all sides, one of the spokespersons for the Internet portal, Nathan Tyler, justified this change as a desire to comply with the names used by international organizations such as the U.N. and the International Organization for Standardization.

Indeed, let’s not forget that Palestine has been considered an “observer state” by the General Assembly of the U.N. since Nov. 29, 2012, representing a first step toward proper recognition and sovereignty. It was certainly a diplomatic victory for the Palestinian authorities, but it is clear that a long and winding road lies ahead before a peaceful solution in the region is successfully reached; the shift to the right in the Israeli political world does not bode well on this matter.

And yet Google, a U.S. company and symbol of American influence in the world, decided to undertake this name change, aware of the symbolic — and thorny? — nature of such a move. Reactions were immediate: obvious satisfaction from the Palestinian side, which stressed that the move followed the line of a diplomatic strategy that began last year; anger from the Israeli side, with the deputy foreign minister accusing Google — in an open letter addressed to Larry Page that was quoted in the Jerusalem Post — of “in essence recognizing the existence of a Palestinian state” and warning of the negative effect that this would have on talks between Israel and the Palestinian authorities.

Google Supported by John Kerry?

But the most interesting reaction came from the Department of State, headed by John Kerry, which did not wish to “take a stance either way,” describing Google’s action as a “private venture.”*

The decision not to condemn Google, both in terms of form — a second diplomatic channel in place — and substance — was it the right time for such an initiative? — suggests that Google may be seen as backup for American authorities when they themselves are blocked by more complex political and diplomatic considerations. Currently focused on Syria and Iran, the U.S. cannot undermine relations with Israel with a new, thorny issue; otherwise the latter, feeling less supported, could act alone.

The spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry feigned astonishment over “this surprising involvement of what is basically a private Internet company in international politics.”

Google’s Soft Power, Acting with Caution

Now, if there really is an example of this, it is precisely Google, which for years has maintained a special relationship — and a very strong mutual support system — with the Department of State. As a result, Google is the spearhead of influence and American values on an international scale and can, if need be, rely on the prerogatives of the Department of State in order to ensure its development and security.

The games of influence and diplomacy over the last few years between Google, the Department of State and China reveal the porous border between economics and politics. More recently, Google boss Eric Schmidt went to North Korea for reasons — winning new markets? Diplomatic appeasement efforts? — that, even today, remain mysterious.

Nevertheless, this affair must not be seen as a case of an all-powerful international company supplanting the role of the state. A more complex system currently exists, in which interdependence prevails, and each protagonist is capable of being put in a difficult situation by the other in case of disagreement. What is more, let’s not forget that the American legislature could enable the administration to prevent an Internet giant like Google from being a hypothetical “superpower.”

Finally, even if symbols have political weight in certain situations, in this particular story it is more of a media and political event, with relatively minor short and medium-term geostrategic consequences. Had it been at the root of a new political or diplomatic chapter, we would certainly have heard reactions from the highest level — Netanyahu, Obama …

* Editor’s note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.