Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:How is this legal? (Score 4, Interesting) 307

At least where I'm at, the law says that a contract unilaterally phrased by one side needs to be interpreted, in a court of law, in the way most detrimental to that side. Under those conditions, the question is not how AM can construe the phrase, but how the plaintiff can construe it.


Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 266

Because Guantanamo was created for a specific purpose to house people accused specifically of violent acts, because the government has been desperately trying to shut it down for years and would have no interest in increasing the population, because it has not had a new prisoner in years, because it would be a massive reputation hit that would serve no rational purpose and would immediately result in numerous public and expensive lawsuits that the executive branch could very easily lose causing further embarrassment, it would be a political liability to all involved, and a massive diplomatic blunder.

I mean, if you were going to argue that the US might take some other extrajudicial action against Assange, I might believe it, but GUANTANAMO? SERIOUSLY?

Comment Re:Small correction (Score 1) 121

Happy to see someone is able to express arguments, especially since I disagree with most of them. A refreshing change in these forums.


Surely, you meant that you were tired of talking either to hotheads or to people who already agree with you, and that you greatly welcome the opportunity to test your assumptions against someone who's willing to answer with actual verifiable statements of fact, so that you can find out in case you are, against all of your expectations, wrong.

A little less of "hypocritical" and "dubious" would be fine though.

I'll do my best, though I counted one "hypocritical", directed at a statement (i.e. - not at you, but at a statement you made), and zero "dubious", which I'll find hard to cut back further on. If you found offense from the "hypocritical", please do accept my apology. I'll do my best to also assume ignorance rather than malice.

And putting words in my mouth is very effective but counter-productive in the long-run.

I did not think I did. If I did, please:
A. Accept my apology
B. Assume I did it out of a genuine misunderstanding rather than malice.

I will be happy (in private, as you said) for you to point out where you thought I attributed to you things you did not say. I am always happy to engage in facts based discussion with people whose opinions I completely disagree, as it allows me to find out my own blind spots and, occasionally, find out that I am wrong about something I believe in.

I might take you up on you offer though, maybe we could have productive discussions.

My email is public for that specific reason.

Although you're defending Israel and I oppose it and if history is any judge, discussions haven't gotten really far, sadly.

The amount of heated, needlessly ad-hominem and derogatory discussions on this topic is, indeed, quite high. It would be a mistake to assume it only happens by Israeli supporters. Personally, I do my best to start each discussion anew, and not apply my opinion of previous speakers to new discussion. I would love for you to give me credit and do the same.

If you are still worried, however, please do feel free to click on to my slashdot page, and then check out earlier comments I've made. This is not the first time I dive into this subject when it comes up here.

I eagerly await your private reply,

Comment Re:Small correction (Score 2) 121

Ayoob Kara is an Arab, yes, but check his alliances...

So an Arab isn't really an Arab if his opinions do not align with what you think an Arab should believe in? Or do you think that Netanyahu's government should have accepted an Arab minister who has an ideology very different than the government's, merely because they are Arab?

Israel is de facto an apartheid nation

Most of that sentence was opinion, so I cut it out. You are entitled to yours, of course (what's more, it is impossible to really prove or disprove to anyone's satisfaction). This part, however, requires more clarification. How can you claim that a country where you can and do find Arab judges judging disputes between Jewish parties, Arab doctors treating Jewish patients, etc is a de-facto apartheid? You do not seem to be using any standard definition of the word that I'm aware of. If this is a result of my ignorance, please do enlighten me, but it seems like the definition you are using is "whatever the dictionary says + whatever it is that I believe, irrespective of facts, that Israel is doing", which is another way of saying "dictionary definition + Israel".

A israeli jew, by law (you know about the Torah right ?) cannot sell its property to an non-jew (arab or otherwise)

The Torah has no binding effect in Israeli court of law, except for very special courts that are only authorized to handle family matters (i.e. - divorces) between all Jews parties. Before you go all giddy with finding another aspect of Israel's apparent segregation, yes, there are parallel Muslim courts.

As for the selling of land, quite a few years ago (I think over a decade, now) the supreme court told KKL, a private organization that, due to historical reasons, holds quite a few lands in Israel, that it is not allowed to discriminate against selling to Arabs, because the volume of lands it is holding creates a de facto racial discrimination.

chekpoints for arabs, house destructions, land stealings, separate transportation for each "race", constant humiliation etc.

But, see, that does not apply to all Arabs, doesn't it? And if it does not, then claiming that it has a racial, rather than, say, security and/or citizenship, reasons is a claim that, at the very least, needs further discussion. What is obviously clear, however, is that you cannot claim racial discrimination while ignoring the fact that the separating line between those who do and those who don't isn't racial.

This is doubly hypocritical now, only a month after the Israeli government (yes, that's Netanyahu's government) started applying these measures against extremist Jews suspected of trying to hurt Arabs.

Don't get me wrong. I hate those measures and I believe Israel should find a more democratic means to resolve the real problems it is facing, but claiming that the reasons for those measures is racism is simply ludicrous.

And the most important thing : the whole state of Israel has been taken by force in 1948 !

I find it hard to explain just how widely inaccurate, and even apocryphal, that claim is. I'd gladly go into the details in private (my email is in this, and every other one of my, comment headers). It is widely off topic here. Truthfully, the entire thread is off topic, but this particular subject is also long.

Why would you defend such a country ?

I'm not the original commenter, but I'll answer anyway: I'm not defending such a country. I'm defending Israel, which isn't such a country.

PS : you're never wise to post anonymously.

Like I said, I'm not the original commenter, but if you need someone not an anonymous coward to respond to, I'm here.


The value of a program is proportional to the weight of its output.