9 ms·

This link title is extremely misleading to the point of being disingenuous and provocative. The title of the linked article is “Israel-Gaza: Why is the region b

jussij 5y ago
Israel can get all the detailed imagery it needs by just launching a reconnaissance aircraft or drone. So on that basis I would say it only stops the Palestinians from getting imagery of the area. Now considering the fact Palestine only has rockets and not missiles, I doubt that imagery is of much value to them. Call me cynical, but I suspect the more important reason to keep these images blurred might be to stop the rest of the world from seeing what is going on.
- tayo42 5y ago
  If that was the case why stop now? And why did they let parts unknown film in Palestine in 2013. The episode wasn't very pro Israel either. This a little to conspiracy theory for me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- betterunix2 5y ago
  I have learned to demand a very high standard of evidence for conspiracy theories, so...let's see the evidence that there is some conspiracy between Google and Israel to hide what is happening there. For that matter, I am not even sure what you think Israel is hiding -- Netanyahu is not at all shy about settlements, the IDF calls people up to tell them when a bomb is going to be dropped on their building, and there are reporters and international observers all over the Israel and the Palestinian territories.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lacksconfidence 5y ago
    The article makes this very clear. There is no google-israel conspiracy. The limits on satelite resolution were dictated by the US government.
    - seagullz 5y ago
      And the US government is dictated by a Israel-first policy. At least in view of the UNSC vetoes [0] and the weapons it supplies. [0] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto...
      - Udik 5y ago
        The idea that a country might pass internal laws specifically to favour a foreign country is incredible, and gives the measure of how much the US is subservient to Israel's interests.
        seagullz 5y ago
        Beside the bipartisan powers-that-be in the US government, the media landscape is obsequious and willing participant too; see 'peace propaganda and the promised land (2004)' [0]. For instance, it didn't make it to the Paper of Record's newsworthiness that the NSA shares, per the Snowden revelations, US citizen's data with Israel [1][2]; to their credit, though, they lightly lament at occasionally getting used as an accessory to the war machine, outside the traditional route [3]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2tEmqM1_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2tEmqM1_E [1] https://www.haaretz.com/report-nsa-sharing-u-s-citizens-data-with-israel-1.5333166 https://www.haaretz.com/report-nsa-sharing-u-s-citizens-data... It is hard to miss how the Israeli newspaper Haaretz is a lot more no-nonsense in tone and coverage than, say, the NYT. [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-g...
- mvzvm 5y ago
  > Call me cynical, but I suspect the more important reason to keep these images blurred might be to stop the rest of the world from seeing what is going on. No, not cynical. I will call it for what it is - baseless conspiracy.
  - loceng 5y ago
    It's certainly not baseless - and you provide no evidence that it is baseless, instead of finding the evidence claimed for it and then somehow proving it's not credible; ironic that your response is baseless.
    - throwhn331 5y ago
      The proof burden is on the person advancing the conspiracy theory, not on the person asking for proof. Since no evidence was given, it is baseless.
      - loceng 5y ago
        Just because they didn't write an essay to cite evidence doesn't make it baseless. LUL
        mvzvm 5y ago
        Please go back to reddit. This is a website for intellectual curiosity.
    - mvzvm 5y ago
      The burden of proof is on the accuser.
  - wombatmobile 5y ago
    I’m curious how Palestinian people live. I’d like to see the condition of their dwellings, infrastructure and resources eg water, roads, rail, ports, public spaces. I just want to get a feel for the place, like I can almost everywhere else. How can I do that?
- MyKneeGrows 5y ago
  It's why they target news agencies such as AP. Now you can't get pictures on the ground. So we all have to rely on is low resolution maps to judge damage. "Security measures", or so they say. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
  - loceng 5y ago
    And plausible deniability only goes so far - shallow thought, propaganda only goes so far until it meets adequate critical thinking; reminds me of Jordan Peterson in his last book Beyond Order - it's the intelligent ideologue that's the most dangerous.
  - Zhenya 5y ago
    Yes. Because no one there has a smart phone. Because they actually killed the journalist. /s Of the course the obvious explanation is the correct one, the building housed military targets (Hamas operations etc) and it was destroyed.
    - gokhan 5y ago
      IDF couldn't provide any evidence of Hamas' existence in that building, it was all over the media yesterday. https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394287848950427649 https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394287848950427649
      - LeoNatan25 5y ago
        IDF provided the evidence to US intelligence, and apparently that hasn’t made its way to the US state department yet.
        sschueller 5y ago
        That is absolutely ridiculous. The US state department is on top of things. There is no way they do not have this information if it exists.
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  > Now considering the fact Palestine only has rockets and not missiles, I doubt that imagery is of much value to them. A high resolution image would be very useful to anyone who is planning a terror attack with suicide bombers, for example.
  - markdown 5y ago
    As we've already established, since Israel can and does already bomb and slaughter Palestinians wholesale with the use of their tech, taking the ability of Palestinian suicide bombers to launch their own attacks is basically giving one side the upper hand and helping them in their genocide. If we can't stop Israel, we need to arm Palestine so they can hit back.
    - Zhenya 5y ago
      "slaughter wholesale" I think we'll need a reference for that. As far as I can tell, warning civilians to evacuate buildings is QUITE the opposite of wholesale slaughter.
      - markdown 5y ago
        > "slaughter wholesale" Almost 200 dead in a few days. If you don't consider that slaughter than I urge you to ask yourself "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME?" > As far as I can tell, warning civilians to evacuate buildings is QUITE the opposite of wholesale slaughter. Shooting missiles into densely populated areas where half the population is children and their deaths are guaranteed isn't the opposite of wholesale slaughter. That's guaranteed wholesale slaughter.
    - throwhn331 5y ago
      "genocide" Patently false claim. About 210 Gaza civilians have been killed in this war, out of 2 million, despite efforts to minimize civilian deaths. It's definitionally not genocide.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Woah, you've gone pretty far off the deep end. You'd do well to remember there are two sides to any conflict (as my parents drilled into us whenever my brother and I would blame each other). In my opinion you can see Israel exercising serious restraint, evacuating people from a target first when possible, firing warning shots before the real attack. Hamas on the other hand is indiscriminately firing over 3000 rockets at Israel civilians. That's like what the Nazis did to London with their V2 rockets. Now there is a big power imbalance here, and I feel for the Palestinians, but they're hardly the good guys here. That's terrorism, plain and simple. No country would tolerate that.
- this2shallPass 5y ago
  I don't know the technical distinction between rockets and missiles. Hamas has some guided explosives that other people that know more about this than I do call missiles. They used to only have unguided rockets - not anymore, for at least 6 years. "The Russian-made Kornet anti-tank guided missile, often called ATGM as an acronym, is accurate and effective. It has a range of around 5.5 kilometers and has been used by Hamas and other terrorist groups for years. In 2015, Hezbollah fired several ATGMs against Israeli Humvees on the border." https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/what-do-hamas-and-pij-have-in-their-rocket-arsenals-analysis-667856 https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/what-do-hamas-an... https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/why-anti-tank-missiles-pose-a-threat-along-gaza-border-668027 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/why-anti-tank-missiles-pos...
  - saberdancer 5y ago
    Rocket is unguided. Missile is guided. ATGM are missiles, but they are close range and used to attack vehicles (armored usually) - they are not useful for attacking long range or building/bases.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  There was a post about this last week where someone said the reason is to prevent the widespread confirmation of Israels nuclear program. Everybody knows they have nukes, but officially the US denies knowing. These images would provide fairly strong evidence of Israel's capabilities, hell Israel has spent years trying to claim satellite images of Iran prove they have a nuclear program.
  - kesor 5y ago
    here you go, all the nukes are right in here - https://www.google.com/maps/place/Negev+Nuclear+Research+Center/@31.0013087,35.1401119,2415m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x15024bcb94eb44c5:0x7ef2d48b535165ac!8m2!3d31.0013!4d35.1445 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Negev+Nuclear+Research+Cen...
- belorn 5y ago
  It would surprise me a lot if there were no people inside both Israel and Palestinians that has the resources and international connections to buy high resolution imagery or simply direct access to satellites. Given a few millions in capital and a few shell companies, finding a commercial entity willing to lend access to a satellite for a few hours seems likely, unless control over satellites are much more militarized than I might think.
  - modo_mario 5y ago
    >finding a commercial entity willing to lend access to a satellite for a few hours The vast majority of satellites aren't made for this kind of mapping as far as I know. Of the ones that are most aren't private commercial projects. Wikipedia lists 6 such projects and i doubt their time is cheap enough to make it worthwile for Palestinian resistance. Israel is another matter but they'd probably just knock on the US door for those.
    - belorn 5y ago
      I think that you are right that the cost is too high compared to other cheaper alternatives, like reconnaissance aircraft on the Israel side. Keeping the images blurred removes the free option so military on each side has to spend resources on the problem. I am however skeptical that it fully stops anyone from getting access to mapping data. I am a bit surprised however that there would not be more satellites that is commercial operated. I keep hearing about old weather satellites that gone past their period of commercial operation in favor of newer ones, and the old ones still having decent cameras and other sensors to provide maps of buildings and structures. With about 6000 satellites currently operating around the earth there should a pretty steady stream of old ones being replaced, and I would think many of them do get reused for new purposes.
      - modo_mario 5y ago
        >so military on each side has to spend resources on the problem. I don't think Israel has to spend much if any. I think the blurring happens based on their request and i'm sure they still have access to unblurred satellite imagery. The only ones that could be hampered by this are the palestinians
- stewx 5y ago
  If you read the article, it clearly states that high-resolution images are now available and permitted by US law: > "As a result of recent changes to US regulations, the imagery of Israel and Gaza is being provided at 40cm resolution," Maxar said in a statement.
guerrilla 5y ago
IDF doesn't need Google maps to plan any attacks. They have an arsenal of remote surveillance methods including 24/7 monitering by both low and high altitude drones, not to mention frequent flyovers in upgraded F-16s. > But please continue the breathless hot takes. This part of your comment doesn't belong on HN.
- plaidfuji 5y ago
  You’re right, my last line was itself provocative and unhelpful. Unfortunately I’m unable to edit now. But my point is that what also doesn’t belong on HN are (a) a blatantly editorialized clickbait title and (b) a comment section full of knee-jerk reactions seeming to take the title at face value. But to your point, indeed the IDF are not going to be planning their air strikes via google maps. The violent actors on the Palestinian side are more likely to “benefit” from publicly available high-resolution satellite imagery of Israel than vice versa. However as others have noted below, US law (kyl-bingaman amendment) apparently requires blurring of high-res imagery of Israel, so Israel was going to be blurred no matter what. Which ironically brings us back to the question, why is Gaza blurred as well? Google doesn’t have to do that. My initial assumption is laziness backed by armchair altruism. It’s easier to just apply a blanket blur policy to the entire Israel-Palestine region to comply with aforementioned KB amendment given the dynamic nature of the borders. Given that blurring is, at least at face value, considered a good thing for security, I could see the people in the room thinking “it’s easier for us and it increases the security of the entire region. We get ahead of any possible claim that google maps is enabling attacks on Palestine while protecting Israel. Problem solved.”.. without thinking through the potential negative externalities. But as you’ve raised, blurring Palestine doesn’t meaningfully prevent planned attacks on Palestine, except if they’re carried out by rogue Israeli actors without state resources. In my understanding those are not as common. So then it raises the legitimate question, “does the negative externality of ‘preventing the world from easily accessing satellite imagery of Palestine and thus understanding the extent of urban destruction’ outweigh the positive benefit to general Palestinian security”? From an objective perspective, possibly, but from Google’s perspective, not blurring would be a much more politically charged move requiring nuanced explanation, so they’re not going to risk it. In the end it’s very “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” much like every other aspect of the broader conflict.
diebeforei485 5y ago
Israel lobbied for the KBA.
supernova87a 5y ago
Your opinion is a bit of wishful thinking when compared against policy reality and whose side has favor written in law. As mentioned in the article, Israel specifically is protected -- "U.S. law mandates U.S. government censorship of American commercial satellite images of no country in the world besides that of Israel.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyl%E2%80%93Bingaman_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyl%E2%80%93Bingaman_Amendment....
vanusa 5y ago
This link title is extremely misleading to the point of being disingenuous and provocative. The title of the linked article is “Israel-Gaza: Why is the region blurry on Google Maps?”... because the entire Israel / Gaza / West Bank region is blurred in the exact same way. There is no preferential blurring of Palestinian areas. My fault - it was a hasty decision to correct what was (perceived) as an error (based on what was perhaps a faulty, because hasty, reading of the title earlier). There's a lot going on in that region at the moment, and a lot of news to catch up on - that's where the haste came from. The clear answer is to prevent actors on both sides from using Google’s satellite imagery to plan attacks against one another. I somehow doubt that the motive is as clear as you suppose - but that's an entirely different matter.

jussij 5y ago

Israel can get all the detailed imagery it needs by just launching a reconnaissance aircraft or drone. So on that basis I would say it only stops the Palestinians from getting imagery of the area. Now considering the fact Palestine only has rockets and not missiles, I doubt that imagery is of much value to them. Call me cynical, but I suspect the more important reason to keep these images blurred might be to stop the rest of the world from seeing what is going on.

tayo42 5y ago
If that was the case why stop now? And why did they let parts unknown film in Palestine in 2013. The episode wasn't very pro Israel either. This a little to conspiracy theory for me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
betterunix2 5y ago
I have learned to demand a very high standard of evidence for conspiracy theories, so...let's see the evidence that there is some conspiracy between Google and Israel to hide what is happening there. For that matter, I am not even sure what you think Israel is hiding -- Netanyahu is not at all shy about settlements, the IDF calls people up to tell them when a bomb is going to be dropped on their building, and there are reporters and international observers all over the Israel and the Palestinian territories.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lacksconfidence 5y ago
  The article makes this very clear. There is no google-israel conspiracy. The limits on satelite resolution were dictated by the US government.
  - seagullz 5y ago
    And the US government is dictated by a Israel-first policy. At least in view of the UNSC vetoes [0] and the weapons it supplies. [0] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto...
    - Udik 5y ago
      The idea that a country might pass internal laws specifically to favour a foreign country is incredible, and gives the measure of how much the US is subservient to Israel's interests.
      - seagullz 5y ago
        Beside the bipartisan powers-that-be in the US government, the media landscape is obsequious and willing participant too; see 'peace propaganda and the promised land (2004)' [0]. For instance, it didn't make it to the Paper of Record's newsworthiness that the NSA shares, per the Snowden revelations, US citizen's data with Israel [1][2]; to their credit, though, they lightly lament at occasionally getting used as an accessory to the war machine, outside the traditional route [3]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2tEmqM1_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2tEmqM1_E [1] https://www.haaretz.com/report-nsa-sharing-u-s-citizens-data-with-israel-1.5333166 https://www.haaretz.com/report-nsa-sharing-u-s-citizens-data... It is hard to miss how the Israeli newspaper Haaretz is a lot more no-nonsense in tone and coverage than, say, the NYT. [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-g...
mvzvm 5y ago
> Call me cynical, but I suspect the more important reason to keep these images blurred might be to stop the rest of the world from seeing what is going on. No, not cynical. I will call it for what it is - baseless conspiracy.
- loceng 5y ago
  It's certainly not baseless - and you provide no evidence that it is baseless, instead of finding the evidence claimed for it and then somehow proving it's not credible; ironic that your response is baseless.
  - throwhn331 5y ago
    The proof burden is on the person advancing the conspiracy theory, not on the person asking for proof. Since no evidence was given, it is baseless.
    - loceng 5y ago
      Just because they didn't write an essay to cite evidence doesn't make it baseless. LUL
      - mvzvm 5y ago
        Please go back to reddit. This is a website for intellectual curiosity.
  - mvzvm 5y ago
    The burden of proof is on the accuser.
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  I’m curious how Palestinian people live. I’d like to see the condition of their dwellings, infrastructure and resources eg water, roads, rail, ports, public spaces. I just want to get a feel for the place, like I can almost everywhere else. How can I do that?
MyKneeGrows 5y ago
It's why they target news agencies such as AP. Now you can't get pictures on the ground. So we all have to rely on is low resolution maps to judge damage. "Security measures", or so they say. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
- loceng 5y ago
  And plausible deniability only goes so far - shallow thought, propaganda only goes so far until it meets adequate critical thinking; reminds me of Jordan Peterson in his last book Beyond Order - it's the intelligent ideologue that's the most dangerous.
- Zhenya 5y ago
  Yes. Because no one there has a smart phone. Because they actually killed the journalist. /s Of the course the obvious explanation is the correct one, the building housed military targets (Hamas operations etc) and it was destroyed.
  - gokhan 5y ago
    IDF couldn't provide any evidence of Hamas' existence in that building, it was all over the media yesterday. https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394287848950427649 https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394287848950427649
    - LeoNatan25 5y ago
      IDF provided the evidence to US intelligence, and apparently that hasn’t made its way to the US state department yet.
      - sschueller 5y ago
        That is absolutely ridiculous. The US state department is on top of things. There is no way they do not have this information if it exists.
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
> Now considering the fact Palestine only has rockets and not missiles, I doubt that imagery is of much value to them. A high resolution image would be very useful to anyone who is planning a terror attack with suicide bombers, for example.
- markdown 5y ago
  As we've already established, since Israel can and does already bomb and slaughter Palestinians wholesale with the use of their tech, taking the ability of Palestinian suicide bombers to launch their own attacks is basically giving one side the upper hand and helping them in their genocide. If we can't stop Israel, we need to arm Palestine so they can hit back.
  - Zhenya 5y ago
    "slaughter wholesale" I think we'll need a reference for that. As far as I can tell, warning civilians to evacuate buildings is QUITE the opposite of wholesale slaughter.
    - markdown 5y ago
      > "slaughter wholesale" Almost 200 dead in a few days. If you don't consider that slaughter than I urge you to ask yourself "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME?" > As far as I can tell, warning civilians to evacuate buildings is QUITE the opposite of wholesale slaughter. Shooting missiles into densely populated areas where half the population is children and their deaths are guaranteed isn't the opposite of wholesale slaughter. That's guaranteed wholesale slaughter.
  - throwhn331 5y ago
    "genocide" Patently false claim. About 210 Gaza civilians have been killed in this war, out of 2 million, despite efforts to minimize civilian deaths. It's definitionally not genocide.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Woah, you've gone pretty far off the deep end. You'd do well to remember there are two sides to any conflict (as my parents drilled into us whenever my brother and I would blame each other). In my opinion you can see Israel exercising serious restraint, evacuating people from a target first when possible, firing warning shots before the real attack. Hamas on the other hand is indiscriminately firing over 3000 rockets at Israel civilians. That's like what the Nazis did to London with their V2 rockets. Now there is a big power imbalance here, and I feel for the Palestinians, but they're hardly the good guys here. That's terrorism, plain and simple. No country would tolerate that.
this2shallPass 5y ago
I don't know the technical distinction between rockets and missiles. Hamas has some guided explosives that other people that know more about this than I do call missiles. They used to only have unguided rockets - not anymore, for at least 6 years. "The Russian-made Kornet anti-tank guided missile, often called ATGM as an acronym, is accurate and effective. It has a range of around 5.5 kilometers and has been used by Hamas and other terrorist groups for years. In 2015, Hezbollah fired several ATGMs against Israeli Humvees on the border." https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/what-do-hamas-and-pij-have-in-their-rocket-arsenals-analysis-667856 https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/what-do-hamas-an... https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/why-anti-tank-missiles-pose-a-threat-along-gaza-border-668027 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/why-anti-tank-missiles-pos...
- saberdancer 5y ago
  Rocket is unguided. Missile is guided. ATGM are missiles, but they are close range and used to attack vehicles (armored usually) - they are not useful for attacking long range or building/bases.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
There was a post about this last week where someone said the reason is to prevent the widespread confirmation of Israels nuclear program. Everybody knows they have nukes, but officially the US denies knowing. These images would provide fairly strong evidence of Israel's capabilities, hell Israel has spent years trying to claim satellite images of Iran prove they have a nuclear program.
- kesor 5y ago
  here you go, all the nukes are right in here - https://www.google.com/maps/place/Negev+Nuclear+Research+Center/@31.0013087,35.1401119,2415m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x15024bcb94eb44c5:0x7ef2d48b535165ac!8m2!3d31.0013!4d35.1445 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Negev+Nuclear+Research+Cen...
belorn 5y ago
It would surprise me a lot if there were no people inside both Israel and Palestinians that has the resources and international connections to buy high resolution imagery or simply direct access to satellites. Given a few millions in capital and a few shell companies, finding a commercial entity willing to lend access to a satellite for a few hours seems likely, unless control over satellites are much more militarized than I might think.
- modo_mario 5y ago
  >finding a commercial entity willing to lend access to a satellite for a few hours The vast majority of satellites aren't made for this kind of mapping as far as I know. Of the ones that are most aren't private commercial projects. Wikipedia lists 6 such projects and i doubt their time is cheap enough to make it worthwile for Palestinian resistance. Israel is another matter but they'd probably just knock on the US door for those.
  - belorn 5y ago
    I think that you are right that the cost is too high compared to other cheaper alternatives, like reconnaissance aircraft on the Israel side. Keeping the images blurred removes the free option so military on each side has to spend resources on the problem. I am however skeptical that it fully stops anyone from getting access to mapping data. I am a bit surprised however that there would not be more satellites that is commercial operated. I keep hearing about old weather satellites that gone past their period of commercial operation in favor of newer ones, and the old ones still having decent cameras and other sensors to provide maps of buildings and structures. With about 6000 satellites currently operating around the earth there should a pretty steady stream of old ones being replaced, and I would think many of them do get reused for new purposes.
    - modo_mario 5y ago
      >so military on each side has to spend resources on the problem. I don't think Israel has to spend much if any. I think the blurring happens based on their request and i'm sure they still have access to unblurred satellite imagery. The only ones that could be hampered by this are the palestinians
stewx 5y ago
If you read the article, it clearly states that high-resolution images are now available and permitted by US law: > "As a result of recent changes to US regulations, the imagery of Israel and Gaza is being provided at 40cm resolution," Maxar said in a statement.

guerrilla 5y ago

IDF doesn't need Google maps to plan any attacks. They have an arsenal of remote surveillance methods including 24/7 monitering by both low and high altitude drones, not to mention frequent flyovers in upgraded F-16s. > But please continue the breathless hot takes. This part of your comment doesn't belong on HN.

plaidfuji 5y ago
You’re right, my last line was itself provocative and unhelpful. Unfortunately I’m unable to edit now. But my point is that what also doesn’t belong on HN are (a) a blatantly editorialized clickbait title and (b) a comment section full of knee-jerk reactions seeming to take the title at face value. But to your point, indeed the IDF are not going to be planning their air strikes via google maps. The violent actors on the Palestinian side are more likely to “benefit” from publicly available high-resolution satellite imagery of Israel than vice versa. However as others have noted below, US law (kyl-bingaman amendment) apparently requires blurring of high-res imagery of Israel, so Israel was going to be blurred no matter what. Which ironically brings us back to the question, why is Gaza blurred as well? Google doesn’t have to do that. My initial assumption is laziness backed by armchair altruism. It’s easier to just apply a blanket blur policy to the entire Israel-Palestine region to comply with aforementioned KB amendment given the dynamic nature of the borders. Given that blurring is, at least at face value, considered a good thing for security, I could see the people in the room thinking “it’s easier for us and it increases the security of the entire region. We get ahead of any possible claim that google maps is enabling attacks on Palestine while protecting Israel. Problem solved.”.. without thinking through the potential negative externalities. But as you’ve raised, blurring Palestine doesn’t meaningfully prevent planned attacks on Palestine, except if they’re carried out by rogue Israeli actors without state resources. In my understanding those are not as common. So then it raises the legitimate question, “does the negative externality of ‘preventing the world from easily accessing satellite imagery of Palestine and thus understanding the extent of urban destruction’ outweigh the positive benefit to general Palestinian security”? From an objective perspective, possibly, but from Google’s perspective, not blurring would be a much more politically charged move requiring nuanced explanation, so they’re not going to risk it. In the end it’s very “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” much like every other aspect of the broader conflict.

diebeforei485 5y ago

Israel lobbied for the KBA.

supernova87a 5y ago

Your opinion is a bit of wishful thinking when compared against policy reality and whose side has favor written in law. As mentioned in the article, Israel specifically is protected -- "U.S. law mandates U.S. government censorship of American commercial satellite images of no country in the world besides that of Israel.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyl%E2%80%93Bingaman_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyl%E2%80%93Bingaman_Amendment....

vanusa 5y ago

This link title is extremely misleading to the point of being disingenuous and provocative. The title of the linked article is “Israel-Gaza: Why is the region blurry on Google Maps?”... because the entire Israel / Gaza / West Bank region is blurred in the exact same way. There is no preferential blurring of Palestinian areas. My fault - it was a hasty decision to correct what was (perceived) as an error (based on what was perhaps a faulty, because hasty, reading of the title earlier). There's a lot going on in that region at the moment, and a lot of news to catch up on - that's where the haste came from. The clear answer is to prevent actors on both sides from using Google’s satellite imagery to plan attacks against one another. I somehow doubt that the motive is as clear as you suppose - but that's an entirely different matter.