West Bank and the Gaza Strip will have different time zones

[David Patte]

I still think its quite proper to use Jerusalem, and East_Jerusalem, as 
these are the chosen largest populated named plsces of the peoples 
involved. According to current UN mandates, Jerusalem is still 
considered an international city, not part of either Israel, or 
Palestine, which is consistant with the fact that no one has an embassy 
there.

If the peoples involved do come to an understanding that is agreed by 
the UN, Jerusalem will be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, 
despite being in neither country. Stating East Jerusalem now simply 
reflects the current selection of both peoples.


On 2011-09-05 12:49, John Hawkinson wrote:
> Ilya Dogolazky<ilya.dogolazky at nokia.com>  wrote on Mon,  5 Sep 2011
> at 11:47:56 +0300 in<4E648CBC.2030809 at nokia.com>:
>
>> West Bank is not a location: it's not a city name, it's not an island
>> name. Is there any other name in the database using a territory name for
>> LOCATION? If not, why to break this rule?
>
> We have US/Eastern and friends, though it is via a link. The obvious
> answer to "why" is that it would be politically expedient and avoid a
> significant conflict; it would align the timezone rule with the
> political bodies defining them; and it would reduce overall confusion
> for neighboring localities.
>
> I don't know if those are sufficient reason to deviate from Theory,
> but I have always felt that the Theory was problematic on this point.
> While we may manage the history of timezones based on the times in
> particular places, that is not how people think of their time
> zone. Unless you happen to live in one of the capital/populous cities
> we have designated, people think of their time zone as designated by
> their political authority. Having to pick a city that you know is
> not-where-you-are is always somewhat of a humbling exercise.
>
> --jhawk at mit.edu
>    John Hawkinson
>
>