Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

[thetramp]

You are right that the described cases are not necessarily rape even by my logic.
My logic was not there to defend those cases, i am not certain about the one tho, as i don't consider it consensual sex anymore, i am not certain it meets my understanding of rape on the other hand. It just happened that reading that, i can think of situations that i would consider rape without any physical violence or the threat of that.
What if we are not talking about things like increased payments any more, but about the threat of losing the job, or the threat of being deported, even promises to me can be pressuring enough if they are powerful enough. Even tho the women eventually agrees it is to me with mental brutality forced sex.

 

[Calboner]

Absolutely not.

This is a clearly racist ruling. The premise of the case centres around the fact that the woman was fine until she found out the guy was an Arab not Jewish. This sketch from Little Britain illustrates quite well her reaction!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89rS6dXdELc&feature=related

Furthermore, she perjured herself, & initially claimed she had been violently raped - no charge for her.

The man didn't claim to be Jewish, he used a Jewish sounding name, which allows more acceptance for Arabs in Israel, & lets face it, a million Jewish people anglicized their names when they migrated to Western countries themselves!

She approached the guy, was shagging him in minutes in a nearby office block, & somehow this is enough for a female judge to decide that the woman was even after a serious long term relationship!?

The other case mentioned shows a clear mens rea. This is more typical of buyer's remorse, which is not actionable retroactively in any country.

Clearly a racist woman, & clearly a racist ruling.
Palestinian jailed for rape after claiming to be Jewish - Telegraph

On the plus side, if you are Jewish,Israel seems like a good place to score!

The words that you quote from me refer to the ruling discussed in the quotation in my post immediately before those words. I will quote that ruling again:

In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

THIS ruling is the one that I described as "a fatuous ruling, to be sure, but one without racial, ethnic, or religious bias." You have given no reason to believe otherwise.

Second, judge Segal's ruling in the case of Shabbar Kashur is a direct application of judge Rubinstein's ruling in the Sleiman case. Even if the application shows racial bias, the fundamental fault is in the Rubinstein ruling, which overextends the concept of rape to cases in which there is no coercion.

 

[B_crackoff]

The words that you quote from me refer to the ruling discussed in the quotation in my post immediately before those words. I will quote that ruling again:

THIS ruling is the one that I described as "a fatuous ruling, to be sure, but one without racial, ethnic, or religious bias." You have given no reason to believe otherwise.

Second, judge Segal's ruling in the case of Shabbar Kashur is a direct application of judge Rubinstein's ruling in the Sleiman case. Even if the application shows racial bias, the fundamental fault is in the Rubinstein ruling, which overextends the concept of rape to cases in which there is no coercion.

Any slight cheerfully withdrawn! That said the rest of the comments stand on their own.

She was shocked - he said he was Kashur - she thought he said Kosher:biggrin1:

The Sleiman Precedent and Judge Rubenstein's Test - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

The case has to be set against the backdrop that intermarriage is illegal in Israel(!), & state sponsored racism against Arab/Israeli relationships..
Marriage in Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israeli drive to prevent Jewish girls dating Arabs - The National Newspaper

‘Marriage to an Arab is national treason’ - Israel News, Ynetnews

In the precedent setting case, the women were neither convicted for prostitution, nor conspiracy to embezzle or defraud.

In this subsequent case, the woman failed to declare she was an out & out racist, & was not convicted for perjuring herself on the witness stand.

There has been no equality in this law - is there any justice in Israel if this is what it's like?

 

[Calboner]

The case has to be set against the backdrop that intermarriage is illegal in Israel(!), & state sponsored racism against Arab/Israeli relationships..
Marriage in Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The statement that "intermarriage is illegal in Israel" is false or at least highly misleading. There is no law in Israel against marriage between persons of different religions; rather, there is a lack of a law making such a thing possible. To say that an act is illegal implies that it is in violation of the law, which is not the case here. As the article that you cite says:

The religious authority for Jewish marriages is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Marriages among Christians, Muslims and Druze are under the jurisdiction of their own religious authorities. There is no provision for inter-faith marriages and no civil marriage in Israel.

 

[maxcok]

You are right that the described cases are not necessarily rape even by my logic.

Not only are they not "necessarily" rape, I fail to see how they come anywhere near constituting rape by any commonly accepted legal definition, at least as it is applied in the modern civilized world.

My logic was not there to defend those cases, i am not certain about the one tho, as i don't consider it consensual sex anymore, i am not certain it meets my understanding of rape on the other hand. It just happened that reading that, i can think of situations that i would consider rape without any physical violence or the threat of that.

The women may have been misled, manipulated, even lied to. There maybe even be grounds to charge fraud in the second case (not so sure in the first one) but how is the sex not consensual? Lying doesn't automatically equal coercion, and offering favors in exchange for sex is not the same as imposing a threat. At all.

The other hypothetical situations you allude to, in order to constitute rape, would involve some other form of nonviolent coercive threat or unwelcome sexual violation, as I said. For example, a cop tells a woman he won't arrest her for a crime if she puts out, or a man takes advantage of a woman who is passed out drunk:

. . . , the rape of an adult, as commonly defined, involves the use of or threat of force, at the very least some coercive threat or nonconsensual sexual violation, just as submissivegirl described. . . . I fail to see where anyone was threatened in either situation as described, even coerced or pressured.

What if we are not talking about things like increased payments any more, but about the threat of losing the job, or the threat of being deported, even promises to me can be pressuring enough if they are powerful enough. Even tho the women eventually agrees it is to me with mental brutality forced sex.

Bbbut . . . we weren't talking about any of those things. "What if"?? I coud invent hypothetical situations all day long that have no bearing on these two cases. Perhaps that's a discussion you'd like to introduce in another thread. In the meantime, can we stick to the actual facts?

As far as I can see, what has happened to these men is a gross and tragic miscarriage of justice.

Can you please show me in either case where there was any "threat" involved?

. . . or where these women were pressured by the men to have sex, or did anything nonconsensual?

 

[thetramp]

What has happened to these men is a gross and tragic miscarriage of justice.

I agree with you there, even tho the case this thread got started on is to me more obvious than the one the ruling results of.

However, all i am saying is, i can see situations where a ruling like that would make sense. The problem is, that the current ruling obviously allows enough interpretation room for judges to make such racist decisions, that shouldn't be.
That does not change my view that extreme forms of deception, as mental threats and pressure should be considered rape. This however is only secondary linked to the case in the OP.

 

[maxcok]

I agree with you there, even tho the case this thread got started on is to me more obvious than the one the ruling results of.

However, all i am saying is, i can see situations where a ruling like that would make sense.

I coud invent hypothetical situations all day long that have no bearing on these two cases. Perhaps that's a discussion you'd like to introduce in another thread. In the meantime, can we stick to the actual facts?

That does not change my view that extreme forms of deception, as mental threats and pressure should be considered rape. This however is only secondary linked to the case in the OP.

How is it linked at all?

Can you please show me in either case where there was any "threat" involved?

. . . or where these women were pressured by the men to have sex, or did anything nonconsensual?

 

[helgaleena]

Separation of church and state would really be nice in this case. But it isn't everywhere.

 

[thetramp]

It is linked through the Sleiman case, that ruling is reason for the current in our both opinion miscarriage of justice. While i find the ruling in the Sleiman case very debatably, i can see situations where aplying it would make sense to me.
My thought basically is, that i think there is need of a specification of law that would consider the described situations as rape and yet would not alow a judge to interpret it as it happend here, that a simple lie about a name would result in being found guilty of rape.

 

[maxcok]

It is linked through the Sleiman case, . . . .

How is it linked at all?

While i find the ruling in the Sleiman case very debatably, i can see situations where aplying it would make sense to me.

I coud invent hypothetical situations all day long that have no bearing on these two cases. Perhaps that's a discussion you'd like to introduce in another thread. In the meantime, can we stick to the actual facts?

Can you please show me in either case where there was any "threat" involved?

. . . or where these women were pressured by the men to have sex, or did anything nonconsensual?

][/

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Well in Israel Jewish restuaranteurs wil sell you "white beef" but will ask you to leave the premises when you order pork. This woman was no Jewish princess. She must be unstable or worse.

 

[B_crackoff]

The statement that "intermarriage is illegal in Israel" is false or at least highly misleading. There is no law in Israel against marriage between persons of different religions; rather, there is a lack of a law making such a thing possible. To say that an act is illegal implies that it is in violation of the law, which is not the case here. As the article that you cite says:

It's hardly misleading at all! As you well know in the USA & UK everything is legal until it is, or has already been proven otherwise.

It's outside the law - outlawed -illegal. Marriages are specifically only allowed between member of the same faith.That is a proscriptive law!

Breach of it is illegal! Ipso facto intermarraige is illegal. And as I've shown from another link, this policy is actively enforced by the state dissuading any interracial relations.

Even the UN considers such a policy fundamentally against humen rights.

"Supporters of civil marriage also argue that the status quo is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16, which states that "men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.""

 

[Calboner]

It's hardly misleading at all! As you well know in the USA & UK everything is legal until it is, or has already been proven otherwise.

It's outside the law - outlawed -illegal. Marriages are specifically only allowed between member of the same faith.That is a proscriptive law!

Bullshit. That's like saying that marriage between persons of the same sex was illegal throughout the history of the US until recently. It wasn't illegal: there simply was no legal provision to make such a thing possible. It is the same thing with marriage between persons of different religious affiliations in Israel. Marriage in Israel is not sponsored by the state. It is performed by religious authorities. If those authorities do not perform marriages between persons of diverse religions, it is they, not the state, who are preventing it. There is no law against it.

 

[B_crackoff]

If they did they'd be prosecuted.

And yes same sex marriage was illegal - BECAUSE it wasn't legal - i.e it could not be recognised in law. And yes - people did marry through progressive pastors, & had their marriages declared unlawful!

Legal = lawful. Illegal = unlawful. Res ipsa loquitar.

 

[Calboner]

If they did they'd be prosecuted.

Bullshit again. (1) There is no law under which they could be prosecuted. (2) They could not marry in the first place because none of the religious authorities would authorize such a marriage.

And yes same sex marriage was illegal - BECAUSE it wasn't legal - i.e it could not be recognised in law. And yes - people did marry through progressive pastors, & had their marriages declared unlawful!

Legal = lawful. Illegal = unlawful. Res ipsa loquitar.

Unlawful or just null and void? The latter, I think. But in Israel, no such thing is the case. The marriage of a man and a woman of different religions who have married outside of Israel is just as legitimate under Israeli law as any other marriage. They simply cannot get married in Israel.

 

[rawbone8]

I need to read more about this, to be sure of some facts, but did hear interviews on radio last evening on this case. In that discussion it was said that the original charge was for rape, and the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge of rape by deception, as a result of a plea bargain.

The man was under house arrest for two years prior to the conviction, and during this time he could not work. Now he has to serve 18 months on top of that.

I agree that they have a strange law in Israel, and it should be a called sexual fraud law, if they want to be accurate.

It seems very likely that it is a racist form of buyer's regret on the part of the woman.

 

[B_crackoff]

Bullshit again. (1) There is no law under which they could be prosecuted. (2) They could not marry in the first place because none of the religious authorities would authorize such a marriage.

And who says who are the religious authorities enabled to take such decisions - the State! Furthermore the State says which religions it recognises, & doen't recognise atheist or secular unions.

Unlawful or just null and void? The latter, I think. But in Israel, no such thing is the case. The marriage of a man and a woman of different religions who have married outside of Israel is just as legitimate under Israeli law as any other marriage. They simply cannot get married in Israel.

Null & void upon the grounds of being unlawful! What other grounds could there be in law if you're using null & void?.

Actually, while you claim marriages outside Israel are recognised, the children of such unions - still aren't. They too would have to marry outside their own country.

De jure or de facto, it doesn't matter. Any marriage outside shared religions, or even for that matter between Reform Jews is not recognised as lawful. Therefore it is unlawful = illegal.

As for prosecutions, it would only take one Reform Rabbi to start marrying a plethora to cause a twist in the law, & an interpretation to prosecute, exactly the same as has been seen in the case which started this thread!

 

[HazelGod]

Legal = lawful. Illegal = unlawful. Res ipsa loquitur.

This is another example of why intelligent people choose mostly not to engage in what passes for discussion here.

If you're discussing abstract definitions removed from pragmatic application, or if you're just an insufferable pedant, then yes, the meanings of the words are self-evident from their construction.

However, this thread discusses a specific prosecution, takes place in the context of modern society, and addresses a lay audience...where the terms in the vernacular carry certain implied meanings commonly understood amongst those using them.

The only things you've materially demonstrated here are a penchant for pedantic obstinacy and a poor grasp of Latin declension.

 

[Calboner]

Null & void upon the grounds of being unlawful! What other grounds could there be in law if you're using null & void?.

I see that you are determined to use language that will obfuscate. The facts are these:

Two people belonging to different religions cannot be wed in Israel. If someone performed a wedding ceremony for such a couple in Israel, they would not enjoy the legal status of a married couple.

There is no law against two people belonging to different religions being wed in Israel. If someone performed a wedding ceremony for two such people, neither the presiding person nor the members of the couple would face legal sanctions.

A marriage performed abroad between two people belonging to different religions is legally recognized in Israel. ("Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel." --From the article that you cited in Wikipedia, "Marriage in Israel")

You like to use the words "unlawful" and "illegal" precisely because they suggest that for someone to marry two persons of different religions or for two such persons to get married is against the law in Israel, as marriage between two persons of different races was once against the anti-miscegenation laws of the American South or South Africa. Nothing of the sort is the case, and you will not come out and say that, but you like to use language that will make precisely that false suggestion to people.

Actually, while you claim marriages outside Israel are recognised, the children of such unions - still aren't. They too would have to marry outside their own country.

Going by the article in Wikipedia that you cited earlier, I can find no basis for any such claim. What do you even mean by saying that the children "are not recognized"? That they are not legally recognized as the children of their mother and father? That is ridiculous, and has no relation to any facts of which I am aware. If you are basing your claim on the law on mamzerim, you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented it.

De jure or de facto, it doesn't matter.

That shows a lot about how serious you are (not) in your insistence on using the terms "illegal" and "unlawful."

Any marriage outside shared religions, or even for that matter between Reform Jews is not recognised as lawful. Therefore it is unlawful = illegal.

Wrong again. There is no law in Israel against Reform Jews marrying. There is no law in Israel invalidating the marriage of Reform Jews. What is the case is that Reform rabbis are not legally authorized to perform marriages in Israel. That is objectionable on all sorts of grounds, but it is quite a different matter.

It is obvious that you care less about stating facts accurately than you care about making Israel look as bad as possible, even if it means playing fast and loose with the facts.

As for prosecutions, it would only take one Reform Rabbi to start marrying a plethora to cause a twist in the law, & an interpretation to prosecute, exactly the same as has been seen in the case which started this thread!

Ah, I see: you reason that the law COULD develop in such a way as to license the prosecution of Reform rabbis who performed marriages, and therefore it IS a prosecutable offense. Something COULD be made illegal, therefore it IS illegal. That is ridiculously feeble argument.

HG, I am ashamed that I missed that obvious error in Latin conjugation.

 

[maxcok]

I need to read more about this, to be sure of some facts, but did hear interviews on radio last evening on this case. In that discussion it was said that the original charge was for rape, and the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge of rape by deception, as a result of a plea bargain.

The man was under house arrest for two years prior to the conviction, and during this time he could not work. Now he has to serve 18 months on top of that.

Terrible what's happened to him. That's one expensive piece of nooky.

I agree that they have a strange law in Israel, and it should be a called sexual fraud law, if they want to be accurate.

If indeed there was any fraud. Sounds like a 'he said, she said' to me. Regardless,she apparently didn't waste any time getting down to business, so it makes one wonder how discriminating she really is.

It seems very likely that it is a racist form of buyer's regret on the part of the woman.

Exactly! Plus I'd say it's a racist law and a racist judge who passed the ruling and sentenced him.