What do we think about this?

In other words, on the basis of a Big Lie Arab shafts Jew and Guardian shafts Israel.

But this does demonstrate, with the emphasis on Demon, how Israel discriminates against its Palestinian population doesn't it? The Guardian being merely the messenger.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind - except in the mind of a bigot like you.

The truth is that Israeli law deems it an offence for man to lie in order to procure sex. If the accused had been Jewish, but told the woman that he was a doctor or a lawyer when he was in fact a plumber, or told her that he was single despite actually being married with 10 children, the same law would have applied. (The law does not apply to women as under Israeli law women are not deemed capable of rape).

It has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue.

@clevenson - tough titty, better luck next time.

Hint:check your facts before pressing the 'post' button...

This just in: Guardian distorts truth to present Israel in a negative light. Leftist rushes to post it on JC Blogs, without checking it's veracity - leaves with egg on face.

clevenson: first, the offence wasn't rape, it was the lesser offence of rape by deception …

the guardian 21/7/2010: Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

second, she didn't just "believe" …

clevenson: … with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.
…
But this does demonstrate … how Israel discriminates against its Palestinian population doesn't it?

she "believed" because he deliberately lied to her: that is rape by deception in many western countries, and the result would have been the same if a jewish man had done the same to an arab woman …

judge tzvi segal (female?) said: …

the guardian 21/7/2010: "The court is obliged 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. 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 – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price."

finally, whatever do you mean by this?

clevenson: Unfortunately it is very hard not to compare this with other events in history.

btw, clevenson, any chance of your apologising for or correcting your completely untrue headline in your blog
Israel set to force all citizens to swear oath to Jewish state ?

Did you see clevenson's post about the woman who was sentenced to being buried alive and stoned to death - for alleged adultery?

Neither did I.

He didn't post about it because it didn't happen in Israel, so no mileage for Jewbaiting.

It happened in Iran.

Ha! Got him/her!

(And why is s/he here - and BD not?!)

You are right, Jonathan, that this has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue, except in the obsessed minds of the Israel-hating Guardian editorship.

In any civilised society it is an offence, morally as well as legally, for a man to lie in order to procure sex.

However, consider this:

Muslims are permitted to lie:

(1) to save their lives,

(2) to reconcile a husband and wife,

(3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom

(4) to facilitate one on his journey.

mitnaged, that seems unlikely, you give no source for it, and it is likely to spread religious hatred: you should not say it unless you have checked that it is true …

mitnaged: Muslims are permitted to lie:
…
(3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom

(indeed, from the layout, it is obvious that you have copied it from somewhere, yet you don't say where so we can check it )

there does not appear to be any authority for this (except on anti-islamic websites)

the nearest i can find are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya and http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-deceit/ …

Deceit in war, the community and marriage:
Muslim 032,6303 According to Mohammed, someone who strives to promote harmony amongst the faithful and says or conveys good things is not a liar. Ibn Shihab said that he had heard only three exceptions to the rules governing false statements: lies are permissible in war, to reconcile differences between the faithful, and to reconcile a husband and wife through the manipulation or twisting of words.

hearing something unlikely, and then condemning on the basis of it without checking, is at best bigotry and at worst racism

people hear obviously unlikely things about jews which they want to believe (eg that british jewish students serve in the israeli army on holiday, that jewish volunteers in haiti steal human organs, and the standard blood libels) and repeat them without question

(and the arab population of israel would be far higher if arabs hadn't believed their own radio broadcasts about jewish rape and mutilation in 1948 … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhSHiwzaIY)

jews shouldn't behave in the same way

mitnaged, do you have any reputable source or link confirming what you wrote??

I have to say that although this minor incident is being used to attack Israel I am concerned about the verdict.

If the man had said, 'I am a millionaire and I will give you a life of luxury' would that be rape by deception?

If he had said 'I love you' and then disappeared, would that be rape by deception?

The fact that the reason given is based on a racial deception is worrying. Are there other examples of rape by deception?

Let's come to England and consider a similar case; a Palestinian poses as a Jew in Golders Green and beds a nubile Jewess. What would be the verdict? I think it would be thrown out. If this is consensual then the assumption is that the sex is based on mutual attraction. Any lawyers out there?

It is a tricky subject and an interesting forensic one. The woman's complaint is that if she had known he was an Arab she wouldn't have had sex with him. That's a racist reason but on the other hand she has the right to choose her partners using whatever criteria she wishes.

The real issue is, is the Israeli judiciary completely impartial in such cases? If so, then the reason for the sentence is fair in the context of Israeli law and the Arab should have been aware of this. If it can be shown that the verdict is consistent with other cases of rape by deception which are not racially based then it is a fair verdict. If not, a higher authority needs to investigate this.

We know what happens in other countries in the Mid-East and we know why it is being highlighted above far more egregious issues in those countries, but it doesn't mean that it is right.

clevenson is, I think, alluding to South african and Nazi laws againt miscegenation which is clearly wide of the mark as there are no such lawss in Israel.

If I were the Arab involved I'd appeal and get a good Jewish lawyer.

raycook excellent points.

In Iran, they would bury her up to her waist and stone her to death.

What do we think about this clevenson?

clevenson, Israel is fighting for the right to life, and all you're concerned about is adding more fuel to her genocidal enemies, working towards her demise.

You must be proud of yourself.

Jurists in Israel agree with my general poins
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jurists-say-arab-s-rape-convic...

(one jurist does, raycook … "Elkana Laist of the Public Defender's Office" … don't be misled by haaretz's headline!)

i think there's no doubt it's a criminal offence, deserving a prison sentence … the question is whether it should be charged as rape by deception or as fraud

it has always been fraud until recently …

In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.

One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud.

the change started in 2008, when a jew was charged with rape by deception …

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."

note that the deception must be "regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman"

pretending to be a jewish bachelor (with, presumably, an apartment and money) when you're really a (muslim?) arab family man seems to me at least as critical as pretending to be a housing official who can get people an apartment and money

Good point Goldfish - but the fact is, if he were a Jewish family man the woman would not have brought the charge. This leaves a racial element in the case that leaves a bad taste.

It is, however a tricky matter legally and very much depends on the laws of the country.

I'm still not decided on this and I agree that Ha'aretz are not the most uunbiased in such matters.

interesting point, raycook …

raycook: … the fact is, if he were a Jewish family man the woman would not have brought the charge. …

while i could reply that we don't know that, i feel i have to agree with you that it is likely …

the decision of a victim whether to (complain and) prosecute depends on lots of things, and obviously she is more likely to do so if there are two reasons (family man and non-jewish) than if there is only one

(and arguing that israeli law would treat the case of an an arab woman and a jewish family man in the same way would be missing the argument … ie the argument that both such women, and both such prosecutions, would be racist)

however, would that be racist of her? all over the world, some people prefer to marry people of their own religion or race … such a preference (even if it is an insistence) doesn't seem racist to me

it's similar to the wish to live in a neighbourhood of exclusively or mainly one's own religion or race … all over the middle east, there are villages or even towns which are exclusively or mainly christian, or muslim, or jewish, or druze, or bedouin, or … is that racist, or is that normal?

while trying to prevent non-jews from moving into your street or village is racist, is preferring not to move into an exclusively or mainly non-jewish street or village racist? and is it racist to say "i'd prefer non-jews not to live in my street or village, but i won't do or say anything to stop or dissuade them", or is it just normal?

i don't think we need to know the complete facts of this case to discuss the general principle … but having outlined the arguments on both sides, it's probably best to wait for the appeal court ruling, and then criticise or support that, rather than pre-emptively take the matter any further now

Comments for this page are now closed.