Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

[DogOnPorch]

Aw..C'mon...

Guys have been "misrepresenting themselves" to get laid since...Forever...

Reaches for those prizes...ends up with two hands full of kleenex.

[dre]

Im really suprised that people didnt just chalk this story up to being a major anomaly. Its sad actually seeing people trying to defend this kind of racist bullshit.

[naomiglover]

This conviction is a perfect example of racism.

This part had me and my partner laughing:

"If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated," Mrs Segal said as she delivered her verdict.

Because if you meet a guy in the street and invite him up to your room for sex, he obviously is "interested in a serious romantic relationship".

[naomiglover]

I have plenty of blame for Muslim theocracies, but so many people act like Israel is some shining beacon of liberty rather than a bigoted and abusive theocracy.

[JB Globe]

Really? Then you must have started threads about it regarding Arab countries, feeling the way you do. So could you point them out to me, please? Because I can't seem to find them.

Thanks in advance.

I think the point is, there isn't really a debate about, nor people apologizing for sexism or racism in Arab states. At the same time, we are not staunch allies of these states either.

What I'd like to suggest is Israel is acting less and less like a democratic state that values individual rights and international law, and this is directly related to the increasing influence of religious hardliners.

The question is, how long is this slide going to go on before we revoke the "unflinching support" we blindingly give Israel? If we really are Israel's best friend, than we should act like a best friend and give them some straight-talk. If my best friend was on a self-destructive path, you damn well believe I'm going to let him know he's hurting himself. Sometimes a friend gets another friend mad at them if it means they'll change their ways for their own benefit - being a Yes-man isn't being a best-friend.

[Bonam]

The question is, how long is this slide going to go on before we revoke the "unflinching support" we blindingly give Israel? If we really are Israel's best friend, than we should act like a best friend and give them some straight-talk. If my best friend was on a self-destructive path, you damn well believe I'm going to let him know he's hurting himself. Sometimes a friend gets another friend mad at them if it means they'll change their ways for their own benefit - being a Yes-man isn't being a best-friend.

Israel is indeed getting straight talk from the US and its other allies. Repeatedly, they have been criticized on issues such as settlements, the blockade, etc. Do you believe otherwise?

[dre]

I think the point is, there isn't really a debate about, nor people apologizing for sexism or racism in Arab states. At the same time, we are not staunch allies of these states either.

What I'd like to suggest is Israel is acting less and less like a democratic state that values individual rights and international law, and this is directly related to the increasing influence of religious hardliners.

The question is, how long is this slide going to go on before we revoke the "unflinching support" we blindingly give Israel? If we really are Israel's best friend, than we should act like a best friend and give them some straight-talk. If my best friend was on a self-destructive path, you damn well believe I'm going to let him know he's hurting himself. Sometimes a friend gets another friend mad at them if it means they'll change their ways for their own benefit - being a Yes-man isn't being a best-friend.

What I find interesting, is how far the westerners who support the piles of human dogshit that are in positions of power on both sides of the conflict, are willing to go, with their asshole-licking apologism.

It just keeps getting more and more surreal... watching westerners have to ratchet up their idiocy and stupidity to match Israel / Palestine.

[dre]

Israel is indeed getting straight talk from the US and its other allies. Repeatedly, they have been criticized on issues such as settlements, the blockade, etc. Do you believe otherwise?

I think western powers say what they HAVE to say in front of the global audience (stop terrorism, stop settlement building, two-state solution etc), but that theres an unwritten agreement behind the scenes (on enshrined in our refusal to back up those words) that essentially gives Israel the green light to do whatever it wants.

My guess is that even if Israel were to adopt a policy of wholesale extermination countries like the US and Canada would offer carefully measured verbal condemnation, then we'd just sit back and watch the show.

[Bonam]

I think western powers say what they HAVE to say in front of the global audience (stop terrorism, stop settlement building, two-state solution etc), but that theres an unwritten agreement behind the scenes (on enshrined in our refusal to back up those words) that essentially gives Israel the green light to do whatever it wants.

Yes, as someone mentioned, that is how "true friends" would behave. You talk straight to your friend, point out where they are wrong, try to dissuade them, but in the end, if they persist on their course, you still support them.

Now, I don't personally buy into this analogy. There are no "true friends" in international politics, only parties that benefit from their alliances/friendships.

My guess is that even if Israel were to adopt a policy of wholesale extermination countries like the US and Canada would offer carefully measured verbal condemnation, then we'd just sit back and watch the show.

As opposed to what? Military intervention? We didn't do that in many real genocides that actually happened, which we also sat back and watched. That being said, I think the possibility of Western intervention, if such a scenario ever happened, would actually be quite high. For instance, in the case of the 2006 Lebanon war, Western nations coughed up thousands of troops as part of the process to pressure Israel into discontinuing its military operations.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Bonam

[Jack Weber]

Reaches for those prizes...ends up with two hands full of kleenex.

Such a let down!!!

Went to school with this chick...

Used to call her "Don't Squeeze the Charmin!"

[dre]

Yes, as someone mentioned, that is how "true friends" would behave. You talk straight to your friend, point out where they are wrong, try to dissuade them, but in the end, if they persist on their course, you still support them.

Now, I don't personally buy into this analogy. There are no "true friends" in international politics, only parties that benefit from their alliances/friendships.

As opposed to what? Military intervention? We didn't do that in many real genocides that actually happened, which we also sat back and watched. That being said, I think the possibility of Western intervention, if such a scenario ever happened, would actually be quite high. For instance, in the case of the 2006 Lebanon war, Western nations coughed up thousands of troops as part of the process to pressure Israel into discontinuing its military operations.

As opposed to any action what-so-ever be it sanctions, carrot and stick diplomacy, military action, or the threat of military action.

We would do sweet fuck all.

[Shady]

but so many people act like Israel is some shining beacon of liberty rather than a bigoted and abusive theocracy.

It is a beacon of liberty in the Middle East. Much more than any Muslim country. It might be flawed, but it's less flawed than any Muslim country. And it's definitely not a bigoted and abusive theocracy. Let's remember, the only gay pride parade in the Middle East takes place in Israel. The only country in which women have equal rights is in Israel.

What happened to this Arab man is wrong. But he has the right to appeal the ruling, and that's what he's doing. That's not the case in many Muslim countries. So despite your best efforts, Israel will never be as backwards and barabaric as the other countries you support.

[dre]

It is a beacon of liberty in the Middle East. Much more than any Muslim country. It might be flawed, but it's less flawed than any Muslim country. And it's definitely not a bigoted and abusive theocracy. Let's remember, the only gay pride parade in the Middle East takes place in Israel. The only country in which women have equal rights is in Israel.

What happened to this Arab man is wrong. But he has the right to appeal the ruling, and that's what he's doing. That's not the case in many Muslim countries. So despite your best efforts, Israel will never be as backwards and barabaric as the other countries you support.

Israel will never be as backwards and barabaric as the other countries you support.

Yup. And Jeffry Dalmer didnt kill as many people as Stalin.

[dre]

Aladdin described his client's liaison in more detail: "There was a short foreplay a few minutes before; during the foreplay, the guy tells a few lies, the lady tells a few lies. They both have one goal, and that is to go to bed together. After the sexual intercourse, which was totally consensual, the lady decides to claim that the guy raped her brutally. She comes to court and testifies that this was a case of rape in which there was the use of force.

"At this stage, the defense decides to make an independent investigation. The investigation came up with new facts upon which the D.A. [district attorney] decides to give up the claim the sex was not consensual. So both sides agreed that the sexual intercourse was consensual. However, the D.A. still wanted to charge him with rape by deception.

This doesnt seem to be about Israel or Race after all! Its just about a good ole garden variety slut and a DA that had to drop his main charge for lack of evidence and is just trying to make something stick.

The whole "rape by deception" thing is utterly retarded in any case.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe the example is not great, but your refutation needs work too, I just realized. The entire premise of " statutory rape " is that the minor cannot consent. And I believe this inability to consent is distinct from the kind that prevents them from entering into contracts. After all, a parent can enter into a contract on a childs behalf, but they cannot consent to sex on a childs behalf, unless I am mistaken.

When the parents enter into a contract on the child's behalf, it's the parent's contract, not the child's. The minor cannot be held legally liable for a contract, and that's the bottom line. Therefore, I do not see a minor being held legally responsible for consent. As I pointed out, I think the best one can hope for from the law is that the adult not be prosecuted under such circumstances.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the point is, there isn't really a debate about, nor people apologizing for sexism or racism in Arab states. At the same time, we are not staunch allies of these states either.

The thing is, this isn't the norm in Israel like it is in those Arab states. Furthermore, the law isn't "racist" as the only other person convicted of rape by deception was an Israeli government worker who was promising women jobs/housing etc. for having sex with him. This law isn't on the books because Israel is racist, but because sometimes the charge has legitimacy.

And anyone doing any more reading on this case knows that this verdict has had just as much negative feedback in Israel as it has elsewhere. This isn't something that 'Israelis condone,' nor is it an example of 'what goes on in Israel' the way it's being presented.

Furthermore, this isn't an 'only in Israel' issue as it was presented since I showed quite clearly that there has been consideration of the same law in Massachusetts and there has been a charge of rape by deception in the UK.

There's only one reason this thread was started and it was to make Israel look bad.

What I'd like to suggest is Israel is acting less and less like a democratic state that values individual rights and international law, and this is directly related to the increasing influence of religious hardliners.

I don't think this issue is any proof/indication/legitimate grounds for that observation. Of course that's the reaction that the author of the thread was going for, but it's unfair.

---------

Furthermore, and this is in response to other comments that have been made, the idea that people are "defending" this verdict is off the wall. No one is defending the verdict, just defending Israel for being shed in the light that it is over this issue. It's unfounded and, as I said, unfair.

Edited July 22, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

The thing is, this isn't the norm in Israel like it is in those Arab states. Furthermore, the law isn't "racist" as the only other person convicted of rape by deception was an Israeli government worker who was promising women jobs/housing etc. for having sex with him. This law isn't on the books because Israel is racist, but because sometimes the charge has legitimacy.

And anyone doing any more reading on this case knows that this verdict has had just as much negative feedback in Israel as it has elsewhere. This isn't something that 'Israelis condone,' nor is it an example of 'what goes on in Israel' the way it's being presented.

Furthermore, this isn't an 'only in Israel' issue as it was presented since I showed quite clearly that there has been consideration of the same law in Massachusetts and there has been a charge of rape by deception in the UK.

There's only one reason this thread was started and it was to make Israel look bad.

I don't think this issue is any proof/indication/legitimate grounds for that observation. Of course that's the reaction that the author of the thread was going for, but it's unfair.

---------

Furthermore, and this is in response to other comments that have been made, the idea that people are "defending" this verdict is off the wall. No one is defending the verdict, just defending Israel for being shed in the light that it is over this issue. It's unfounded and, as I said, unfair.

I don't think this issue is any proof/indication/legitimate grounds for that observation. Of course that's the reaction that the author of the thread was going for, but it's unfair.

Any country with a law on its books that allows this kind of thing to happen deserves all the scorn it gets. If other countries have similar laws then shame on them as well.

[Guest American Woman]

Any country with a law on its books that allows this kind of thing to happen deserves all the scorn it gets. If other countries have similar laws then shame on them as well.

Give me a break. I'm willing to bet every country in existence, including Canada, has laws that have allowed one verdict that has been interpreted as racist, and if those countries had someone putting them under a microscope, we would hear about it. If we cared enough to look, we could find them. And if you're naive enough to think otherwise, especially without putting any effort into finding out differently, then shame on you so be it.

[dre]

Give me a break. I'm willing to bet every country in existence, including Canada, has laws that have allowed one verdict that has been interpreted as racist, and if those countries had someone putting them under a microscope, we would hear about it. If we cared enough to look, we could find them. And if you're naive enough to think otherwise, especially without putting any effort into finding out differently, then shame on you so be it.

Not sure what youre talking about here.

Its not the racist angle that bothers me here, its the whole concept of "rape by deception" thats disgusting.

In any case your continued defense that this could happen in "other countries" is really kinda sad. You could use that tactic to defend almost every abhorent act in human history.

And if you're naive enough to think otherwise, especially without putting any effort into finding out differently, then shame on you so be it.

Its almost like you dont even read before you reply... I never said I thought otherwise. In fact I said "shame on them too".

Edited July 22, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Not sure what youre talking about here.

Its not the racist angle that bothers me here, its the whole concept of "rape by deception" thats disgusting.

In any case your continued defense that this could happen in "other countries" is really kinda sad. You could use that tactic to defend almost every abhorent act in human history.

Why do you think stating facts is "defense?" I've clearly stated that I'm not "defending" the verdict, I'm not even so much defending the law, I'm defending Israel for the way this was presented.

Furthermore, your response to my post, the one I was responding to, most definitely didn't make it clear that you were disgusted with the law; so I thought, in light of the purpose of the thread and my post about it, that you were disgusted with the racist aspect of it.

But if you think it shouldn't be illegal for doctors to tell desperate terminal patients that they can be cured by having sex with them, or telling desperate homeless people that they will be given housing for sleeping with them, if you think that shouldn't be illegal, then I'm sure some people think that's disgusting, because if you read up on the idea behind the law at all, it's definitely not disgusting.

Its almost like you dont even read before you reply... I never said I thought otherwise. In fact I said "shame on them too".

It's almost like you don't think about what I actually said before you reply.

And you'll have to forgive me if your "IF other countries ..." comment didn't impress me.

[dre]

But if you think it shouldn't be illegal for doctors to tell desperate terminal patients that they can be cured by having sex with them, or telling desperate homeless people that they will be given housing for sleeping with them.

The former is an illegal violation of medical ethics, and the latter is a combination of prostitution and breach of a verbal contract.

Neither of them have a gawd damn thing to do with rape.

[Guest American Woman]

The former is an illegal violation of medical ethics, and the latter is a combination of prostitution and breach of a verbal contract.

Neither of them have a gawd damn thing to do with rape.

According to legal experts, they do have a gawd damn thing to do with rape.

As for your claim that it's "breach of a verbal contract," you think if you promise a woman a new car if she sleeps with you and you don't deliver that you'd be charged with "breach of a verbal contract?" And "prostitution" involves soliciting. If the person wasn't offering sex in exchange for housing, it's not prostitution.

[naomiglover]

Gideon Levy from Haaretz has written a piece on this racist conviction:

He impersonated a human

Sabbar Kashur wanted to be a person, a person like everybody else. But as luck would have it, he was born Palestinian.

Sabbar Kashur wanted to be a person, a person like everybody else. But as luck would have it, he was born Palestinian. It happens. His chances of being accepted as a human being in Israel are nil. Married and a father of two, he wanted to work in Jerusalem, his city, and maybe also have an affair or a quickie on the side. That happens too.

He knew that he had no chance with the Jews, so he adopted another name for himself, Dudu. He didn't have curly hair, but he went by Dudu just the same. That's how everyone knew him. That's how you know a few other Arabs too: the car-wash guy you call Rafi, the stairwell cleaner who goes by Yossi, the supermarket deliveryman you know as Moshe.

No longer a youth, Sabbar/Dudu worked as a deliveryman for a lawyer's office, rode his scooter around Jerusalem and delivered documents, affidavits and sworn testimonies, swearing to everyone that he was Dudu. Two years ago he met a woman by chance. Nice to meet you, my name is Dudu. He claims that she came on to him, but let's leave the details aside. Soon enough they went where they went and what happened happened, all by consent of the parties concerned. One fine day, a month and a half after an afternoon quickie, he was summoned to the police on suspicion of rape.

His temporary lover discovered that her Dudu wasn't a Dudu after all, that the Jew is (gasp! ) an Arab, and so she filed a complaint against the impostor. Her body was violated by an Arab. From then on Kashur was placed under house arrest for two years, an electronic cuff on his ankle. This week his sentence was pronounced: 18 months in jail.

Judge Zvi Segal waxed dramatic to the point of absurdity: "It is incumbent on the court to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth, sweet-talking offenders who can mislead naive victims into paying an unbearable price: the sanctity of their bodies and souls." Sophisticated offenders? It is doubtful that Dudu even knew he was one. Sweet talk? He says that even his wife calls him Dudu.

The court relied, as usual, on precedents: the man who posed as a senior Housing Ministry official and promised his lover an apartment and an increased National Insurance pension, and the man who posed as a wealthy neurosurgeon who promised free medical care and other perks. Dudu had nothing to offer but his good name, Dudu, and still his fate was sealed, just like those who promise apartments and perks. Not only fraud, but rape, almost like the convicted serial rapist Benny Sela.

Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein had, after all, defined the test of conviction for rape on "false pretenses": "if in the view of an ordinary person this woman would have agreed to have sexual relations with a man who did not have the identity he invented."

In tune with the public, Kashur's judges assumed, rightly, that the woman would not have gotten into bed with Dudu were it not for the identity he invented. She also might not have gotten into bed with him if he had told her in vain that he was available, that he was younger than he really is or even that he is madly in love with her. But people are not prosecuted for that, certainly not on rape charges.

Now the respected judges have to be asked: If the man was really Dudu posing as Sabbar, a Jew pretending to be an Arab so he could sleep with an Arab woman, would he then be convicted of rape? And do the eminent judges understand the social and racist meaning of their florid verdict? Don't they realize that their verdict has the uncomfortable smell of racial purity, of "don't touch our daughters"? That it expresses the yearning of the extensive segments of society that would like to ban sexual relations between Arabs and Jews?

It was no coincidence that this verdict attracted the attention of foreign correspondents in Israel, temporary visitors who see every blemish. Yes, in German or Afrikaans this disgraceful verdict would have sounded much worse.

Haaretz

Edited July 22, 2010 by naomiglover

[dre]

According to legal experts, they do have a gawd damn thing to do with rape.

As for your claim that it's "breach of a verbal contract," you think if you promise a woman a new car if she sleeps with you and you don't deliver that you'd be charged with "breach of a verbal contract?" And "prostitution" involves soliciting. If the person wasn't offering sex in exchange for housing, it's not prostitution.

If she sleeps with me in return for a new car she is a PROSTITUTE, and I am a JOHN and we could both be prosecuted.

pros·ti·tu·tion   /ˌprɒstɪˈtuʃən, -ˈtyu-/ Show Spelled[pros-ti-too-shuhn, -tyoo-] Show IPA

–noun

1. the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money.

In Canada its ILLEGAL for her to trade sex for a car.

Whats more... SHES A STUPID PROSTITUTE. She arranged a major transaction without a written contract.

But even if it WAS legal for her to trade sex for a car, the crime that Im committing by not honoring my contract with her HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RAPE WHAT-SO-EVER. Rape is sex in the absense of legal concent.

rape1    /reɪp/ Show Spelled [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.

–noun

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

3. statutory rape.

4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.

5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Recap... In your scenario...

Shes a stupid whore... and Im a liar. But NOBODY WAS RAPED.

According to legal experts, they do have a gawd damn thing to do with rape.

BULLSHIT. WHAT LEGAL EXPERTS?

Edited July 22, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

If she sleeps with me in return for a new car she is a PROSTITUTE, and I am a JOHN and we could both be prosecuted.

pros·ti·tu·tion   /ˌprɒstɪˈtuʃən, -ˈtyu-/ Show Spelled[pros-ti-too-shuhn, -tyoo-] Show IPA

–noun

1. the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money.

In Canada its ILLEGAL for her to trade sex for a car.

OMG. If you think that kind of thing isn't going on, that people are promising marriage, whatever, for sleeping with them, people are promising to take them on a trip, etc, and if you think that's all "prostitution" in the legal sense, think again. And if everyone was prosecuted, the courts would be busy doing nothing but dealing with charges of "prostitution" and "johns."

Whats more... SHES A STUPID PROSTITUTE. She arranged a major transaction without a written contract.

People engage in verbal contracts/promises all the time.

But even if it WAS legal for her to trade sex for a car, the crime that Im committing by not honoring my contract with her HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RAPE WHAT-SO-EVER. Rape is sex in the absense of legal concent.

You're the one who said the example of housing for sex was breaking a verbal contract, not rape by fraud. I gave a similar example. And as much as you keep claiming that it has nothing to do with rape, I repeat that legal experts do think it is a form of "rape." I'm not saying it is in all cases, but when it's a person in authority, then there should be more to it.

Have you read the links that I've provided? Or are you too busy typing in CAPS and bold print to have bothered? For the record, I'm capable of understanding normal type.

But since you apparently have not read the links, two states already have "rape by fraud" laws on the books, and they involve partners who said "yes" because they were tricked/lied/whatever into it. Now it may be your opinion that such cases don't involve rape, but that's all it is: your opinion, in spite of your CAPS and bold print.

Recap... In your scenario...

Shes a stupid whore... and Im a liar. But NOBODY WAS RAPED.

So you keep saying, but your opinion doesn't make it fact.

Edited July 22, 2010 by American Woman