If I were a Jewish man: the Arab fiddler on the roof


By Melchett Mike
August 2, 2010
Share

The rape (by deception) conviction, last month, of an East Jerusalem Arab who posed as a love-seeking Jewish bachelor in order to get into the knickers of an Israeli Jewess prompted me to recall some of the more spurious yarns I have spun, over the years, to get my wicked way.

One summer, for instance, on a road trip across the US (during our break from Manchester University), I scored – with a Smiths-obsessed frat girl – with the whopper that Morrissey was our next door neighbour (a claim to fame which left her with no choice).

In fact, the absolute ludicrousness of both the recent conviction and the 18-month prison term (appealed) handed down to Sabbar Kashur – a married, 30-year old, father-of-two who introduced himself to the complainant as “Dudu”, an Israeli nickname – caused me to do the unprecedented (forbidden?) and concur with Haaretz’s Gideon Levy: see http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/he-impersonated-a-human-1.3....

“If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship,” ruled Jerusalem District Court Judge Zvi Segal, “she would not have cooperated.”

After approaching Kashur as he exited a grocery store in the capital, that fateful midday in September 2008, the “serious romantic” Israeli – in her late twenties – clearly did not need an awful lot of persuading to accompany “Dudu” for a quickie on a nearby roof.

And Kashur maintains that he “didn't pretend” anything. “I said my name is Dudu because that’s how everybody knows me. My wife even calls me that.” (The penny perhaps dropped for our nice, naive yiddishe girl with Kashur’s cry, at the height of passion, of “Allahu akbar!” Okay, I made that bit up.)

The court then heard that Kashur – who has been under house arrest ever since – departed the scene without waiting for his Jewish princess to get dressed.

But what exactly was he expected to do? To hold her for a few minutes and, looking into her eyes, tell her that she was his best first-date bunk up since his morning coffee break?

“The court is obliged,” continued Judge Segal, “to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls.”

While Kashur’s oral physiology and abilities are not matters about which I care to speculate, I suspect that his ‘victim’ may not have been quite as chaste as Judge Segal would have us believe. “Sanctity of bodies and souls,” indeed!

“When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims,” concluded Judge Segal, “otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled.”

“Intimate” and “sensitive”?! Shagging a complete stranger on a roof?!

No. The only thing that “drop[ped]” in this case was a pair of loose-fitting knickers (if, indeed, there were any to begin with). And, regarding our nice, virtuous Jewish meydl, the words that spring to mind are “gagging for it”.

One thing is for sure: If an Israeli male had nailed an Arab woman by telling her that he was a Muslim, there would have been no case to answer (except, of course, with her brothers). Indeed, this whole sorry affair is an uncomfortable reminder of certain 1935 racial purity laws. And just when one thought it impossible for Israel’s world image to sink any lower.

Anyway, if you happen to be reading this, you poor innocent thing: I really am a Jewish bachelor . . . and like nothing more than a bit of “serious” rooftop “romance”.

http://melchettmike.wordpress.com
http://www.justgiving.com/melchettmike

COMMENTS

raycook

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 23:18

Rate this:

0 points

I agree with you except on one thing. Bringing up the 1935 racial purity laws in this case would be considered an anti-Semitic slur were anyone else to write it (and they have). There are no racial purity laws in Israel. This isn't about that.

The only bigot in this case is the Jewish woman.

I mentioned on another post the the man should appeal and get himself a good Jewish lawyer.

Both these two are pretty immoral. But if the woman says 'please judge, if I'd known he was an A-rab I wouldn't have had casual sex' (eyelashes a-flutter) then she should be thrown out of the court.

If the judge believes this is rape by deception (and this has happened, apparently, in cases where it is Jew on Jew, as it were) then that charge should be mitigated by the woman's overt racism.

What the judge is doing is legitimising the woman's racism because she has a right to chose with whom she has casual sex regardless of the reason (however nasty) which is technically correct (apparently).

The sentence is ridiculous given the mitigating circumstances.

Where's Judge Judy when you need her?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS