# RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 21, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472 "2010-07-21T15:29:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/341 "2010-07-29T13:19:26Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > [Update: appeal filed.](http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3926911,00.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > Attorney Elkana Laist is claiming that the District Court’s sentence went much beyond the norm, given that his client engaged in consensual sexual relations with the complainant. > > > > “It’s hard to believe that a person who engaged in sex a few minutes after the initial meeting gave much weight to the statement that her partner was interested in a serious relationship,” the attorney said. > > > > The judges who sentenced Kashour ruled that he showed basic human indifference towards his victim, yet the appeal charges that this statement constituted “an outdated, patriarchal worldview whereby only a man can enjoy sex, while the woman cannot enjoy it at all and would only consent in exchange for a promise of a relationship, and only as long as this relationship involves a man of identical ethnicity” I hope the appeal succeeds - because extenting rape by fraud to such a tangental misrepresentation is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/342 "2010-07-29T14:25:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > > > Well then, why isn’t she going to jail? I’m sure she said and obviously did many things consistent with being an easy lay. Nowhere did she include the disclaimer that she was such a bigot that she would press rape charges against someone simply because he was a Palestinian (don’t mention the marriage part, easy lays don’t give a shit about the marriage status). 😃 > > > > I just realized I said something similar to sinical brit. > > Being a “bigot” and an “easy lay” a defence against rape? > > I don’t think those arguments would fly in most courts these days. Once upon a time, certainly, a woman who was “easy” in effect couldn’t be raped. That’s my whole point! It’s clearly ridiculous. “Ewww, he had Palestinian cooties” is no more justification for a rape charge than, “Well, I thought she was just an easy lay. I’m suing her for being a bigot.” Actually, he has more of a case to sue her because she actually did something serious to him. And you keep saying you’re against the general rape by fraud. There may actually be legitimate cases of rape by fraud. However, many of us suspect that there is rare precedent for this and this case is the state supporting a woman’s bigotry. By doing that, you’re downplaying the bigger picture. Otherwise, this case would be nothing but RO. But you clearly don’t want to see that or you see it and don’t want to admit it, so I’m tired of wasting my time. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/343 "2010-07-29T14:28:34Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > That’s my whole point! > > It’s clearly ridiculous. “Ewww, he had Palestinian cooties” is no more justification for a rape charge than, “Well, I thought she was just an easy lay. I’m suing her for being a bigot.” Actually, he has more of a case to sue her because she actually did something serious to him. > > And you keep saying you’re against the general rape by fraud. There may actually be legitimate cases of rape by fraud. However, many of us suspect that there is rare precedent for this and this case is the state supporting a woman’s bigotry. By doing that, you’re downplaying the bigger picture. Otherwise, this case would be nothing but RO. > > But you clearly don’t want to see that or you see it and don’t want to admit it, so I’m tired of wasting my time. In short, you think this is state bigotry and no amount of logic or facts will persuade you otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/344 "2010-07-29T14:38:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > > > > [@villa](#): > > > > > > > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > > > > > > > A woman is perfectly entitled to be as racist as a whole barrel of KKK members regarding who she will sleep with. > > > > > > > > No one is arguing that. The question is whether the power of the state should be utilized to assist someone being as racist as a whole barrel of KKK members regarding who she will sleep with. > > > > > > The answer is obviously “yes”. > > > > > > Otherwise there is no meaning to the notion that a woman, or man, has a choice to be perfectly racist in his or her choice of bed-mates. > > > > > > The state should be utterly indifferent as to what basis a person chooses to have sex. It is their _totally subjective_ choice. If that choice is removed, by coercion or (arguably) by fraud, that _removal of choice_ is a crime. > > > > > > Society has a valid interest in interfereing with freedom of choice in some matters - for example, employment. I do not believe that one has an unfettered discretion to choose not to employ qualified candidates on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. > > > > > > However, it is I contend utterly absurd to argue - as you and others are doing - that the same principles apply to whom you choose to sleep with. > > > > Where have I argued that? > > > > I can fully support the freedom of choice to do something without requiring that the law be involved. To be more precise, it is possible to argue that, a person should be permitted to racially discriminate in their sexual preferences, but that if that person is to make a mistake as to the race of the partner they select, even if that mistake is caused by a lie told by the selected partner, this is not a matter for the criminal law. Kind of a sexual _caveat emptor_ if you will. > > > > I’m honestly not sure where I land on this in the end. But I was merely pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. > > > > I support an individual’s freedom to choose his or her sexual partners for whatever reason. If a person decides, for example, they only want to sleep with people with men with 12" penises, for example, and a person claims to meet that requirement, but the next morning it is discovered the person is only 11 3/4", I don’t think it a valuable use of the criminal system to prosecute the poor under-endowed man. However, there are situations where deception reaches a level that should involve the law. The problem is that one cannot write a law to include one and not the other. What I’d look for is prosecutorial discretion. It’s perfectly possible to argue that societal interests would be better served by not prosecuting a case where a person lies about his or her religion to get laid. > > What “inconsistency”? You quoted the inconsistency yourself. My problem was that you were accusing people of saying that a woman wasn’t entitled to be racist in her choices sexually. She absolutely is. But the question isn’t whether she has that right. The question is whether the **criminal law** should be used to sanction those who seek to mask their ethnicity. That’s an open question. We don’t always enforce things through the criminal law. Sometimes we leave it up to the ‘victim’ to sue under civil law if they feel wronged. > [@Malthus](#): > > You asked a question - “whether the power of the state should be utilized to assist someone being as racist as a whole barrel of KKK members regarding who she will sleep with”. > > To my mind, the answer is an obvious “yes”. Assuming that a person’s right to sexual choice ought to be enforced at all by criminal sanctions, it is utterly immaterial whether that choice is informed by shallow materiality (wanting a surgeon), cultural factors (“I’m a Sikh and will only marry a Sikh”), or outright racism (“I’d never let a Black man touch me”). > > The caveat is that, like you, I have my doubts as to whether this is an area the state should be involved in _at all_ - that is, whether fraudsters who claim to be neurosurgeons or rock stars, or for that matter unmarried Jews, ought to be prosecuted. > > But if there is - I really do not understand why someone lying about their very identity ought to be, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, less subject to the law than someone who is lying about their occupation. Other than that it evidenly gives rise to quite unjustified fears of racism on the part of the authorities. Because the irradication of racism is a societal objective, whereas the irradication of employment based discrimination has not been given the same priority. That doesn’t mean individuals don’t have a right to be racist, but we place limits on the degree to which the state will use its power to enforce one’s right. As I said, I don’t know how you can write the law to exclude some types of fraud, but that is when to look to the prosecutor. I’d hope they looked very hard before prosecuting any allegations of race based lies. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/345 "2010-07-29T14:51:56Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You quoted the inconsistency yourself. My problem was that you were accusing people of saying that a woman wasn’t entitled to be racist in her choices sexually. She absolutely is. But the question isn’t whether she has that right. The question is whether the **criminal law** should be used to sanction those who seek to mask their ethnicity. > > That’s an open question. We don’t always enforce things through the criminal law. Sometimes we leave it up to the ‘victim’ to sue under civil law if they feel wronged. It isn’t an “inconsistency”. The notion that certain types of lies are _not actionable_ through criminal law (if others are) in effect states that the right to choose freely is limited by that degree - it is not absolute, since the right will, in those cases, not be enforced. > [@](#): > > Because the irradication of racism is a societal objective, whereas the irradication of employment based discrimination has not been given the same priority. That doesn’t mean individuals don’t have a right to be racist, but we place limits on the degree to which the state will use its power to enforce one’s right. As I said, I don’t know how you can write the law to exclude some types of fraud, but that is when to look to the prosecutor. I’d hope they looked very hard before prosecuting any allegations of race based lies. Exactly - this is a case in which you are calling on the state to limit the degree to which the state will enforce one’s rights. That’s my point. Such limits make perfect sense in some fields - like employment, or service. They do not make any sense in others - like the choice of sexual or romantic partner. The notion that such “race based lies” in the field of romance ought, for policy reasons, to be beyond the pale doesn’t make logical sense to me, precisely because in so many cultures _who you are_ is an important consideration - and there are no policy reasons to disapprove of that. If Sikhs wish to marry other Sikhs, _that desire does not offend against public policy_. Contrast with Sikhs wishing only to employ other Sikhs, or wishing only to serve other Sikhs in a reastaurant. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/346 "2010-07-29T15:38:53Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Because Israel is still a democracy. > > Cite? I thought it was common knowledge. [Politics of Israel - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel) Its not simply that Israel is a democracy. Its that Israel is a democracy that has elected a hawkish reactionary government because of terrorism. You can justify all sorts of things if you are scared and you feel like the victim. There still seems to be a lot of psychological baggage that relates back to the war of independence and Khartoum. Sometimes it seems like they don’t realize that they are a dominant military power in the region, I don’t think any of their immediate neighbors could take them in a war. > [@Malthus](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > > > You appear to be arguing that the same sorts of limits and qualifications ought to apply on her choice as to _who to fuck_. How does that make any sense? > > > > I don’t think that is his argument. We are not giving Palestinian men the right to sue the woman for refusing to sleep with them purely because they are Palestinian. I think his argument is that the woman CHOSE to sleep with the Palestinian. No coercion or force was used. Days after the fact, she discovers he is a Palestinian and the state wants to put him in jail for two years. Does anyone have cites to examples of the details of the situations of when this law has been used in the past ebcause every detailed example i have seen indicates a lot more than a one night stand. > > Rape is sex procured without meaningful choice on the part of one of the partners. That choice may not be meaningful because it is coerced. Another way that that choice may not be meaningful is that it is based on fraud. > > _If you accept that_, what limits or qualifications are you willing to put on it? The arguments here by your “side” are all by folks apparently willing to say ‘that’s all very well, but when the fraud is about one’s ethnicity, the principle should not apply - and in fact _it is racist to apply it_’. Which in turn means that lying about one’s ethnicity ought to be somehow privileged - and renders meaningless the notion that a person’s choice of sex partner, a choice made free of fraud, ought not to be restrained. > > That, to my mind, is nonsense. The reason that the law is bad lies with the principle as stated - it is, to my mind, over-inclusive - and not with any alleged “racism”. Well I agree the law is silly in any case and I am probably influenced by the state of the law in America. I would cite the case of the country club that had its liquor license revoked when the club forbade the sale of alcohol to blacks. I’m not saying that this is an analogous case but the court recognized that in some cases, the government is violating the constitutional prescription against discrimination based on race by exercising their authority to allow that private discrimination. However, this is Israel, not America. In Israel it may be permissible for the government to use their authority to support the racism of others. The question is whether what may be racist in America may be racist in Israel as well. [quote=“Maeglin, post:332, topic:547472”] > [@villa](#): > > I support an individual’s freedom to choose his or her sexual partners for whatever reason. If a person decides, for example, they only want to sleep with people with men with 12" penises, for example, and a person claims to meet that requirement, but the next morning it is discovered the person is only 11 3/4", I don’t think it a valuable use of the criminal system to prosecute the poor under-endowed man. However, there are situations where deception reaches a level that should involve the law. The problem is that one cannot write a law to include one and not the other. What I’d look for is prosecutorial discretion. It’s perfectly possible to argue that societal interests would be better served by not prosecuting a case where a person lies about his or her religion to get laid. The question is whether there is racism here (not counting the racism of the woman). Is a facially neutral law that (prohibits deception to acquire sex) gives the force of the law to a woman’s prejudice in a case like this where the man lied about his race, racist in its application generally (it would be racist if a Jewish man lied about being a Muslim to have a one night stand with a Muslim woman) and therefore cannot be applied to distinctions that the law would not permit the government to make. If you say, maybe but he also lied about his marital status, then you ask the second question. Is there any evidence of racism in a case of first impression being brought up in a situation that has to be an everyday occurrence in every neighborhood in the world (maybe that’s too broad but not by a whole lot). > [@](#): > > By choosing to have sex immediately instead of going through a courtship process, you trade off some of this verification time for instant gratification. > > It seems more deceptive to me to foil the verification process than it does to lie up front about being single. But if it’s deceptive to create a fake Facebook profile or some other false identity to entice people into having sex with you, then it’s also deceptive to lie up front when you first meet them. The only difference is whether you do it spontaneously to get a particular person to have sex with you or whether it represents some sort of deceptive pattern. Are you saying that there is a duty of care? Do you think that the rule should only apply where you care enough to check and if that verification is foiled by deception? How much verification is required, how much of that must be foiled? So if I say I’m single, you don’t see a ring on my finger, the friends that I am with all swear that I am single and I take you back to my bachelor pad (that my wife knows nothing about), is that enough deception to trigger the law? Where do we draw that line? Was taking off my wedding band foiling verification, how about my friends vouching for my bachelorhood? How about the bachelor pad I keep for just such an occasion? > [@](#): > > I think I find this ruling so troubling because it’s _not_ racist but because it is a clearly undesirable result of a reasonable principle. I think that is Malthus’s position as well but if this is in fact the law (no matter how stupid), then shouldn’t it be applied in this case? > [@amanset](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > Well, wouldn’t you then say that the treatment has been successful ? > > Oh yes, I think it has. There’s no doubt about it. > > Unfortunately that treatment is utterly inhumane. I personally don’t accept the idea that it is morally OK for a country to kill 100 people from another country just because one of their own has been killed. The basic concept of humanity and how we treat each other transcends national borders. Both Palestinians and Israelis are human beings and deserve to be treated that way. Does Israel deserve any more criticism than America did for invading Iraq. But for the invasion of Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis may still be alive today. It was one of the reasons that America eventually kicked out the Republicans (for a couple of years at least). > [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, the answer is an obvious “yes”. Assuming that a person’s right to sexual choice ought to be enforced at all by criminal sanctions, it is utterly immaterial whether that choice is informed by shallow materiality (wanting a surgeon), cultural factors (“I’m a Sikh and will only marry a Sikh”), or outright racism (“I’d never let a Black man touch me”). > … > But if there is - I really do not understand why someone lying about their very identity ought to be, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, less subject to the law than someone who is lying about their occupation. Other than that it evidenly gives rise to quite unjustified fears of racism on the part of the authorities. I posted above about giving the force of law to personal racism. I can be racist about who picks apples from my tree but should the law really punish a person who pretended to be white to get an apple? > [@Malthus](#): > > The issue with a lie that ought to be actionable is (a) is it a lie about something objectively verifiable that is (b) material and (c) that the liar knew “but for” the lie, the victim would never have consented and that (d) it is reasonable under the circumstances to expect the victim would be relying on that thing. Someone brought up the question of whether the victim was reasonably relying on that claim? If the Jewishness of her lovers is so important to her, why didn’t she do more than take his word for it? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/347 "2010-07-29T15:43:13Z")
> [@sinical\_brit](#): > > If this case was occurring in America, in which people have pointed out some states have the same law, could the man now sue the woman for one or more of the following?: > > 1. Entrapment. By not attempting to check any of the facts presented to her, despite the potential for her own personal ‘injury’ ( she REALLY doesnt want to shag a married man and will prosecute if she ends up doing so ), the woman failed to inform him that there was more at stake than just some casual sex. I don’t know how it is in Israel but ignorance of the law is generally no excuse (even when the law is irrational and stupid). > [@](#): > > 1. Slander. If the prosecution can prove that the woman HAS slept with a married man before, then she just has a problem with THIS man / this particular shag. What is it? Maybe its personal racism. A woman is undeniably free to choose who she sleeps with, using whatever criteria she desires. If she will only sleep with Jews because she thinks is more Kosher or something then that is her choice. IANA Lawyer so have probably used all the wrong words, but you see what i am getting at hopefully. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/348 "2010-07-29T15:52:13Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > [Update: appeal filed.](http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3926911,00.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > Attorney Elkana Laist is claiming that the District Court’s sentence went much beyond the norm, given that his client engaged in consensual sexual relations with the complainant. > > > > “It’s hard to believe that a person who engaged in sex a few minutes after the initial meeting gave much weight to the statement that her partner was interested in a serious relationship,” the attorney said. > > > > The judges who sentenced Kashour ruled that he showed basic human indifference towards his victim, yet the appeal charges that this statement constituted “an outdated, patriarchal worldview whereby only a man can enjoy sex, while the woman cannot enjoy it at all and would only consent in exchange for a promise of a relationship, and only as long as this relationship involves a man of identical ethnicity” WTF HAPPENED TO ALADDIN?!?!?!?! > [@Malthus](#): > > Being a “bigot” and an “easy lay” a defence against rape? > > I don’t think those arguments would fly in most courts these days. Once upon a time, certainly, a woman who was “easy” in effect couldn’t be raped. Well we are calling it rape but when I think of rape, I think of forcible rape, I don’;t think anyone would say that you can forcibly rape someone because they are a bigot or “easy” but I do think that it is more difficult for someone who is “easy” to claim that they have been fouled by having sex with someone who wasn’t who they said they were. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/349 "2010-07-29T15:57:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well I agree the law is silly in any case and I am probably influenced by the state of the law in America. I would cite the case of the country club that had its liquor license revoked when the club forbade the sale of alcohol to blacks. I’m not saying that this is an analogous case but the court recognized that in some cases, the government is violating the constitutional prescription against discrimination based on race by exercising their authority to allow that private discrimination. > > However, this is Israel, not America. In Israel it may be permissible for the government to use their authority to support the racism of others. The question is whether what may be racist in America may be racist in Israel as well. I think that country club case, though as you say not analogious, illuminates the precise point in dispute. Refusing to serve a Black person in a club is the sort of thing that governments have a legitimate reason to restrain, because the choice of service, though free, is not untrammeled by public policy considerations - namely, to avoid racism. That’s exactly the difference between service and choice of sexual partners. The government, and society as a whole, has no legitimate interest in avoiding racism in such choices. As stated above - if a Sikh wishes to only date or marry other Sikhs, society has no interest in stepping in and (say) refusing a marriage license until that person has tried some Blacks or Jews first. 😃 America does not differ from Israel in this … > [@](#): > > Someone brought up the question of whether the victim was reasonably relying on that claim? If the Jewishness of her lovers is so important to her, why didn’t she do more than take his word for it? Reasonable reliance is certainly an issue. But generally, it doesn’t lie in a liar’s mouth to complain that the victim of the lie should have been more careful. After all, if your money was so important to you, why did you play a game of three-card monty with some disreputable guy in a bar? Etc. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/350 "2010-07-29T16:01:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > WTF HAPPENED TO ALADDIN?!?!?!?! If a lawyer rubs his magic lamp and produces for his client the longest sentence in history, he tends to get replaced as counsel of record. 😃 > [@](#): > > Well we are calling it rape but when I think of rape, I think of forcible rape, I don’;t think anyone would say that you can forcibly rape someone because they are a bigot or “easy” but I do think that it is more difficult for someone who is “easy” to claim that they have been fouled by having sex with someone who wasn’t who they said they were. It’s the same principle whether forced or fooled - that we need not take the victim’s outrage over having their freedom of choice interfered with, if they are so damn casual about bestowing that choice in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Chicagojeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@Chicagojeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicagojeff)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/351 "2010-07-29T19:46:01Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > [@sqweels](#): > > > > The point is that she gave her consent. Throughout the sex act, consent was maintained. > > The argument is that she wouldn’t have given her consent had he not deceived her. So he committed fraud on her in order to get her consent. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is a good law, but I can understand why it exists. You want someone to give informed consent, and to lie to someone so they’ll have sex with you is unethical, at least. Selling me a car that’s over-priced or that you know has an issue with it is unethical.. and caveat Emptor to myself and the israeli woman. Let the fucking buyer beware. Methinks she should have put a little more time into it prior to knocking boots. What changes the stakes in all of this is a criminal charge.. simply because something is ugly..or unethical shouldn’t include the option of jailing the offender. And its a straw horse to imply that the suspect’s ethnic identity doesn’t play a role in this.. Finn and the rest can fly that trojan horse anyone with a brain can read the implications. ---
**Author:** ![Chicagojeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@Chicagojeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicagojeff)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/352 "2010-07-29T19:59:27Z")
I think this link explains the difference between tastelessness and criminality… perhaps the Israeli high courts need more training? [http://www.jewishjournal.com/keepingthefaith/item/rape\_or\_hate\_in\_israel\_20100728/](http://www.jewishjournal.com/keepingthefaith/item/rape_or_hate_in_israel_20100728/) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/353 "2010-07-29T20:20:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > WTF HAPPENED TO ALADDIN?!?!?!?! > > If a lawyer rubs his magic lamp and produces for his client the longest sentence in history, he tends to get replaced as counsel of record. 😃 What the translation failed to note is that the new lawyer’s name begins with a “Dr”. Seems as though some big gun wants to make some constitutional law. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/354 "2010-07-29T22:22:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > > > That’s my whole point! > > > > It’s clearly ridiculous. “Ewww, he had Palestinian cooties” is no more justification for a rape charge than, “Well, I thought she was just an easy lay. I’m suing her for being a bigot.” Actually, he has more of a case to sue her because she actually did something serious to him. > > > > And you keep saying you’re against the general rape by fraud. There may actually be legitimate cases of rape by fraud. However, many of us suspect that there is rare precedent for this and this case is the state supporting a woman’s bigotry. By doing that, you’re downplaying the bigger picture. Otherwise, this case would be nothing but RO. > > > > But you clearly don’t want to see that or you see it and don’t want to admit it, so I’m tired of wasting my time. > > In short, you think this is state bigotry and no amount of logic or facts will persuade you otherwise. Good God. The State, as in district court judge Tzvi Segal, who concluded that, > [@](#): > > the law had a duty to protect women from “smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price” > “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. These are the chilling remarks I and many others in this thread are talking about. Clearly the prosecution also has issues since it decided to pursue this nonsense. These are representatives of the State. What are these people if not representatives of the State? In fact, retired senior justice ministry official says this, > [@](#): > > In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official. > "The question is whether the **state** should punish somebody in that situation. It puts the law in the position of what could loosely be described as discrimination. I would feel intuitively uncomfortable about prosecuting someone for something like that. The bigger picture, which is why this thread is not a simple RO is described later in the article, > [@](#): > > It is very well known that Israeli-Palestinians living in Israel disguise themselves," said Leah Tsemel, a human-rights lawyer. "You change your accent and you change your dress because if you look like an Arab you face harassment. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/355 "2010-07-30T00:50:44Z")
Ok, I didn’t read all 8 pages so forgive me if someone has made this point. I don’t really have a problem with the fraud=rape laws. IMHO this are based on relative worth: Being a doctor is better than being a bum Being single is better than being married (in terms of one night stands) Curing a disease is better than no curing a disease etc. etc. Thus if someone consents on the basis of one of those lies, they are harmed because they receive less than was advertised, so to speak. My problem with this is that by convicting this gentlemen, the court finds that this woman was cheated, so to speak. To continue my analogy, the only way she is cheated is if she receives less than advertised. Thus the ruling implies that being Jewish\>Palestinian, which if that’s your preference, whatever, but to put the force of government behind that is troubling. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/356 "2010-07-30T05:19:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That’s exactly the difference between service and choice of sexual partners. The government, and society as a whole, has no legitimate interest in avoiding racism in such choices. > > As stated above - if a Sikh wishes to only date or marry other Sikhs, society has no interest in stepping in and (say) refusing a marriage license until that person has tried some Blacks or Jews first. 😃 We are not trying to get the Sikh to try out some blacks and jews. We are telling the Sikh that if they have sex with a Jew who says they Sikh, we will not send the Jew to jail. But I hear you. We are not concerned about preventing racism in this case so why does it matter if the government enforces the law that recognizes the right to discriminate on the basis of race in cases where there is no direct public interest in preventing racism. I might point to sort of atmosphere it creates but I don’t think my argument is near as compelling as I once thought it was. > [@Malthus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Well we are calling it rape but when I think of rape, I think of forcible rape, I don’;t think anyone would say that you can forcibly rape someone because they are a bigot or “easy” but I do think that it is more difficult for someone who is “easy” to claim that they have been fouled by having sex with someone who wasn’t who they said they were. > > It’s the same principle whether forced or fooled - that we need not take the victim’s outrage over having their freedom of choice interfered with, if they are so damn casual about bestowing that choice in the first place. I am not sure its the same principle. I see a gap between forcible rape and what happened here. I think you do too. That may be a problem with the law itself but since the law is what it is, and if we are comparing the relevance of how “easy” someone is, I think it is irrelevant in the case of forcible rape (BTW prostitutes are pretty difficult to rape in many jurisdictions (because their occupation is admissible at trial and the defense attorneys have a field day with it)). I think it is somewhat relevant in the case of “I wouldn’t have fucked him if I knew he wasn’t Jewish” > [@Alessan](#): > > What the translation failed to note is that the new lawyer’s name begins with a “Dr”. Seems as though some big gun wants to make some constitutional law. Oh so this is probably some law school professor or something. > [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Good God. The State, as in district court judge Tzvi Segal, who concluded that, > > > [@](#): > > > > the law had a duty to protect women from “smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price” > > “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. > > These are the chilling remarks I and many others in this thread are talking about. Clearly the prosecution also has issues since it decided to pursue this nonsense. These are representatives of the State. What are these people if not representatives of the State? In fact, retired senior justice ministry official says this, > > > [@](#): > > > > In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official. > > "The question is whether the **state** should punish somebody in that situation. It puts the law in the position of what could loosely be described as discrimination. I would feel intuitively uncomfortable about prosecuting someone for something like that. > > The bigger picture, which is why this thread is not a simple RO is described later in the article, > > > [@](#): > > > > It is very well known that Israeli-Palestinians living in Israel disguise themselves," said Leah Tsemel, a human-rights lawyer. "You change your accent and you change your dress because if you look like an Arab you face harassment. Well, I think we have established WITHOUT this case that Israel is a racist society. But at this point we only have the one case and between the internal outrage and the a lack of any other proof, all we really have is the suspicion that if the roles were reversed, police might not have arrested, prosecutors might not have prosecuted and the judge may not have convicted and sentenced to 2 years. I would still like to know ore about the other cases where this law was enforced. If it was in fact enforced to send a Jewish guy who had a one night stand with a woman by claiming to be a neurosurgeon then I think that the argument gets very weak. > [@treis](#): > > Ok, I didn’t read all 8 pages so forgive me if someone has made this point. I don’t really have a problem with the fraud=rape laws. IMHO this are based on relative worth: > > Being a doctor is better than being a bum > > Being single is better than being married (in terms of one night stands) > > Curing a disease is better than no curing a disease > > etc. etc. > > Thus if someone consents on the basis of one of those lies, they are harmed because they receive less than was advertised, so to speak. My problem with this is that by convicting this gentlemen, the court finds that this woman was cheated, so to speak. To continue my analogy, the only way she is cheated is if she receives less than advertised. Thus the ruling implies that being Jewish\>Palestinian, which if that’s your preference, whatever, but to put the force of government behind that is troubling. I think the answer to your question is that people have personal preferences in who they have sex with. For a Palestinian woman whose parents were killed by IDF, a Palestinian man might be a far superior bedmate than a Jew. In fact having sex with a Jew might be significantly more offensive to her than having sex with a Palestinian was to this woman. Of course I presume that this woman would probably have done more than take some guy’s word for it knowing that there are quite a few Jews floating around town. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/357 "2010-07-30T12:20:05Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Ok, I didn’t read all 8 pages so forgive me if someone has made this point. I don’t really have a problem with the fraud=rape laws. IMHO this are based on relative worth: > > Being a doctor is better than being a bum > > Being single is better than being married (in terms of one night stands) > > Curing a disease is better than no curing a disease > > etc. etc. > > Thus if someone consents on the basis of one of those lies, they are harmed because they receive less than was advertised, so to speak. My problem with this is that by convicting this gentlemen, the court finds that this woman was cheated, so to speak. To continue my analogy, the only way she is cheated is if she receives less than advertised. Thus the ruling implies that being Jewish\>Palestinian, which if that’s your preference, whatever, but to put the force of government behind that is troubling. A preference does not necessarily mean some sort of objective, hierarchical superiority. Many (in fact, most) religious and ethnic groups prefer to date and marry within the minority. Thus, a Sikh may wish to only date Sikhs and a Greek may wish to only date Greeks, and supporting the right to this choice does not mean that Sikhs are better than Greeks, or vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/358 "2010-07-30T14:45:31Z")
So lying about one’s ethnicity is sufficiently fraudulent that the law needs to shield women from making bad decisions about who they have sex with. Seems like that infantilizes women, but okay. Question: If a woman says, “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill,” and a man, relying on that assurance, has sex with her, but he later finds out she was _not_ on the pill, did she rape him? Assume that he would not have had sex with her but for her promise. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/359 "2010-07-30T14:56:43Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > So lying about one’s ethnicity is sufficiently fraudulent that the law needs to shield women from making bad decisions about who they have sex with. Seems like that infantilizes women, but okay. > > Question: If a woman says, “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill,” and a man, relying on that assurance, has sex with her, but he later finds out she was _not_ on the pill, did she rape him? Assume that he would not have had sex with her but for her promise. This sort of question (and no doubt many more examples that can be asked) is an illustration of why such a law is, in general, a bad idea. See the article upthread that argues such a law could be used to charge underaged people who lie about their ages. To my mind, such a law should really be seriously restricted (as it is in some jurisdictions). I would go further and restrict the applicable fraud to frauds about the specific identity of a particular person, like pretending to be someone’s husband or wife. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472/360 "2010-09-08T15:28:46Z")
The original charge was forcible rape. The “rape by deception” was a [negotiated plea to spare the victim the trauma](http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-deception-turns-out-to-be-brutal-rape-of-a-vulnerable-and-abused-woman/) of testifying: > [@the victim's account](#): > > When they left the elevator on the top floor of the building, according to B., Kashur took her to the stairwell that led to the attic. There, according to her, he raped her. “We took off my pants and underwear”, described B., “and all of this was done with force, I didn’t agree to anything… I was left in just my shirt. Then he took off his clothes… then he put saliva on his penis and then, it was like full penetration, like, it wasn’t with consent as he claims. He laid me on the floor… and asked to kiss my chest too and then like when I asked that he stops and tried to push him away, he started pressuring me with his arms forcefully on me… when I tried to push him with my hand in his stomach, this happened in a more advanced stage, when he was already inside of me, then he said that if I don’t stay silent and I don’t resist, then it would like end faster and it wouldn’t be like, he wouldn’t use force. I still resisted him and it was forced.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-palestinian-jailed-for-being-palestinian/547472.md?page=19)