RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Bryan_Ekers]

Steven Wright: …and then she said she was turned on by Jewish cowboys. She asked me my name and I said ‘Bucky Goldstein’.

[Quint]

@Malthus

People accept plea-bargains all the time. In every case, does this mean that the police were overzealous and/or alleged victims lying about the more serious charge?

OK, I’ll try to explain my point better. The guy is initially charged with violent rape and indecent assault. Would he be charged with these crimes if the victim alleged that he lied to seduce her? If so the cops are being overzealous, as lying to obtain sex is not violent rape. If she said that he violently raped her and that is why he was initially charged that way, she was lying.
In either event, I understand that plea bargains happen all the time, I have just never heard of an assault case being bargained down to fraud, which is what people here are comparing the incident to. However, I am obviously not a lawyer and may just not be understanding something.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Wait a Jewish girl and a Muslim man had sex…EWWWWWWW!!

(j/k)

[Malthus]

@Quint

OK, I’ll try to explain my point better. The guy is initially charged with violent rape and indecent assault. Would he be charged with these crimes if the victim alleged that he lied to seduce her? If so the cops are being overzealous, as lying to obtain sex is not violent rape. If she said that he violently raped her and that is why he was initially charged that way, she was lying.
In either event, I understand that plea bargains happen all the time, I have just never heard of an assault case being bargained down to fraud, which is what people here are comparing the incident to. However, I am obviously not a lawyer and may just not be understanding something.

In order to properly address these questions, we would have to know a whole lot of facts not in evidence - at least, not in evidence to us.

Again, this objection is similar to others made above.

This thread seems to have the following overall trajectory:

1. OMG this is so racist. It’s aparthied in action.

2. [analysis as to why it is logically difficult to distinguish this case for any other if there exists such a crime as “rape by fraud”]

3. Well, that may be so, but if you assume [all these facts we don’t know - like that no Jew would ever be charged if their positions are reversed, or that similar laws in America have “never” been interpreted in the same way, or that the unknown facts surrounding the plea bargain demonstrate that the cops/“victim” were overzealous/liars and motivated by racism] then it is still horribly racist!

Well, yeah, I suppose if one assumes the cops or judge acted in a racist manner I suppose this is an example of the cops and judge acting in a racist manner.

My only point is that the intitial impression was incorrect - that the facts as we know them do not disclose any racism on the part of the court, or the cops, or of this law. Which is not of course to say that they are not racist. They may well be. Only that this particular set of facts is not a very good indication of it.

That said, I still do not think it is a good law. Rape by fraud ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to very narrow cases, to avoid injustice.

[Quint]

@Malthus

In order to properly address these questions, we would have to know a whole lot of facts not in evidence - at least, not in evidence to us.

Again, this objection is similar to others made above.

This thread seems to have the following overall trajectory:

1. OMG this is so racist. It’s aparthied in action.

2. [analysis as to why it is logically difficult to distinguish this case for any other if there exists such a crime as “rape by fraud”]

3. Well, that may be so, but if you assume [all these facts we don’t know - like that no Jew would ever be charged if their positions are reversed, or that similar laws in America have “never” been interpreted in the same way, or that the unknown facts surrounding the plea bargain demonstrate that the cops/“victim” were overzealous/liars and motivated by racism] then it is still horribly racist!

Well, yeah, I suppose if one assumes the cops or judge acted in a racist manner I suppose this is an example of the cops and judge acting in a racist manner.

My only point is that the intitial impression was incorrect - that the facts as we know them do not disclose any racism on the part of the court, or the cops, or of this law. Which is not of course to say that they are not racist. They may well be. Only that this particular set of facts is not a very good indication of it.

That said, I still do not think it is a good law. Rape by fraud ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to very narrow cases, to avoid injustice.

I have not called anyone a racist. The guy was not initially charged with rape by fraud, but with violent rape. I am hoping we can all agree that pretending to be a doctor or surgeon or magical healing rabbi is not violent rape. I fail to see how the police would arrest someone for violent rape going on the story that some fellow pretended to be someone he wasn’t to get someone to sleep with him. That’s the part that looks bad.

[Malthus]

@Quint

I have not called anyone a racist. The guy was not initially charged with rape by fraud, but with violent rape. I am hoping we can all agree that pretending to be a doctor or surgeon or magical healing rabbi is not violent rape. I fail to see how the police would arrest someone for violent rape going on the story that some fellow pretended to be someone he wasn’t to get someone to sleep with him. That’s the part that looks bad.

I’m not saying you did; I was using your post as a spring-board to comment on the course of the argument in this thread generally.

As to the “violent rape” thing - he said/she said situations are difficult enough to parse; in this case, we simply have no idea what she said to the cops.

[DSeid]

@Honesty

This doesn’t make sense to me. This assumes the Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to get sex with this specific girl - how do you know that? If I were a Palestinian that could “pass” as a Jew, I’d do it in a heartbeat - wouldn’t you? I’m black and I always check my ethnicity as “white” whenever I asked on forms. Should I be fined or imprisoned too because I misrepresented myself? I’ve gone to the DMV and shouted down a state employee when she tried to check that I was “black” when I had infact put white. Until there are compulsory lab exams to determine ethnicity, I am what I say I am and there really shouldn’t be an argument about it. My view, in this case, is that the State has no business inquiring about my ethnicity at all.

What is the litmus test to determine whether an individual is Palestinian or Jewish? Is free speech protected in Israel or not?

• Honesty

The conviction was a plea bargain. He admitted to it is how we know it, apparently.

And it isn’t too hard for a Palestinian to “pass” as a Jew if they want to. Jews come in all shapes and colors from Black to lily white and many other shades.

I don’t get your lying. I can understand saying its none of their business, but lying? Why? Yes, lying on your forms at the DMV would be a problem.

Fraud is not protected speech.

[Jackmannii]

@Jackmannii

This example was dismissed by another poster as being completely different from the case in the OP, as it pertained to a Jewish male who falsely assumed a religious identity as opposed to the case in the OP, which involved a Muslim male who falsely assumed a religious identity, and…oops.

@Really Not All That Bright

The former impersonated an authority and claimed to be able to provide a service. That is fraud.

As opposed to real rabbis, who can actually “cure” people?

The latter implied that he was a member of an ethnic sect, and made no claims of service.

You are casting his crime in as false a light as the OP.

I think you’re also straining very hard (and unsuccessfully) to cast these two incidents as completely different, and failing to obscure the fact that in one case an apparently Jewish male was prosecuted in Israel for rape by fraud, and in the other a Palestinian male was prosecuted under the same law. The degree of culpability is certainly not the same, but the behavior was viewed as criminal for similar reasons.

Besides, didn’t the Palestinian faker provide the same “service” as the fake rabbi? :dubious:

[Honesty]

@DSeid

Fraud is not protected speech.

I’m sort of hung up on this. How is it fraud? Let me ask you this. If a guy tells a woman that he has a 9 inch penis to get her to go to bed with him and she finds out the next morning that he has a 5 inch penis, is that fraud? Should he go to jail? What about in Disney’s Aladdin? Should the motherfucker be executed or imprisoned because he lied that he was a Prince instead of a pauper so he could have sex with Jasmine? Men lie and exaggerate all of the time to get pussy - it’s so common that the phenomenon is nearly a proverb. This should be a lesson to the woman that you should take anything a man says with a grain of salt.

• Honesty, who is flying on a carpet

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Jackmannii

Besides, didn’t the Palestinian faker provide the same “service” as the fake rabbi? :dubious:

Yes, but he didn’t purport to offer any other service, did he?

[DSeid]

a) I think the young lady may find out about the exaggeration before coitus transpires.

b) In Disney’s Aladdin she knew he was not a Prince before they had sex.

But your point is still appreciated: you are asking whether or not the law is a good law or if it ends up potentially criminalizing common behaviors, even if it is intended to include only significant fraudulent ones. And that is a reasonable discussion to have. But it is not one that has any bearing on whether or not the law, its application, or Israeli society at large, is demonstrated to be discriminatory on the basis of this incident. (Please note, I do believe that there is some institutionalized discrimination in Israel, much akin to levels of institutional discrimination that other minority populations are subjected to in other countries, maybe a bit worse than some or even quite a few. This particular case however is not evidence of it.)

Still lying to get your way is not “freedom of speech” - if as a young man I claimed I was Native American in order to get a scholarship that was only available to members of that group, that would be fraud. Why would a similar lie told to get some sex be any less of a fraud? Is education that much more valuable than sex? To a young man?

Yes we accept that many men will attempt fraud for sex, and assume that it usually fails, and we often exempt it as something boys do. But that does not make it any less fraudulent does it?

[wonky]

@Honesty

This should be a lesson to the woman that you should take anything a man says with a grain of salt.

It appears the person who should have learned a lesson was the man who lied to get sex.

[DSeid]

This article (pdf) is pertinent.

Fraud, along with force and coercion, is one of the three principal
means by which a person can commit rape.12 Obtaining intercourse through
fraud, just as through force and coercion, constitutes rape because it vitiates
the consent of the victim.13 … rape by fraud triggers the issue of whether a
victim’s fraudulently induced consent to intercourse is legally effective con-
sent. As Stephen Schulhofer predicts, “the next generation of issues [in
rape law] will center on when or whether ‘yes’ . . . mean[s] ‘yes.’”16
The two most prevalent types of rape by fraud transpire in the contexts
of medical treatment fraud and marital relations.17 In the typical fraudulent
medical treatment case, a patient consents to penetration by a medical in-
strument (often for gynecological purposes), but instead receives sexual in-
tercourse.18 In the typical spousal impersonation case, a spouse consents to
intercourse with someone whom s/he believes is his or her spouse (typically
the victim is in the dark and barely awake), but instead receives intercourse
with a non-spouse.19 … A number of factors have led modern rape law to more widely recog-
nize intercourse obtained by fraud as rape.77 First, due to the sweeping
reconceptualization of rape as a violation of one’s sexual autonomy rather
than a crime of violence, consent (which fraud vitiates) has increasingly
supplanted the element of force as the focal point of rape law.78 Second,
Susan Estrich has influentially called for the same standard of fraud that
applies in criminalizing financial transactions to also apply in rape law.79
… Although the scope of rape-by-fraud liability has broadened somewhat,
the criminal law persists in refusing to recognize some types of fraud used
to obtain intercourse—paradigmatic instances of fraud in the inducement—
as rape.82 Fraud as to the degree of the perpetrator’s affection for, or roman-
tic commitment to, the victim is commonly not treated as rape.83 Obtaining
intercourse by false representations of “I love you,” “I’ll respect you in the
morning,” or “I only want to be with you,” is dismissed as endemic to the
illusions that courtship and romance often foster and as insufficiently seri-
ous to be deemed rape.84 As one author notes, “What is being in love, in
fact, if not harboring certain illusions about love, about oneself, and about
the person with whom one is in love?”85 … by “alluring make-up or a false moustache,”88 or by false representations that
one drives a Ferrari or owns a mansion on the French Riviera is deemed,
like misleading advertising, as seller’s puffery and too trivial to be classi-
fied as rape.89 As a New York court put it, “*t is not criminal conduct for a
male . . . to assure any trusting female that, as in the ancient fairy tale, the
ugly frog is really the handsome prince.”90 For these types of misrepresen-
tations, it seems the criminal law’s posture is that all’s fair in love and
war.91 “Caveat amator!”92

FWIW.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

I think there’s an expectation that the law is a lot more granular than it really is, and that causes confusion. In reality, people do things all the time that are technically prosecutable as one offense or another; they just aren’t prosecuted.

So, for instance, Honesty, the reason it can be called fraud to lie to somebody in order to get sex is that, loosely speaking, fraud only means lying to somebody to get something out of them. So why wouldn’t it be? The law doesn’t say “but not if it’s something obvious like ‘I’ve got a huge wang’” or otherwise require that it be particularly egregious. Ordinarily, that kind of discretion is exercised by some combination of the victim, the police, the DA, and the courts. If all of them feel like taking it seriously, there’s nothing preventing a perfectly by the book conviction for it, which shocks people because it doesn’t match their expectations, only their expectations are naturally based on the practical enforcement of the law, and not the letter. It’s the same with rape – “but that’s OBVIOUSLY not rape!” The thing is, rape has a definition, and the things that fit it do fit it.

I don’t mean to say that the question “why would this be prosecuted” isn’t a good one; just that the question “how is this (crime X)” is generally pretty easy to answer.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FinnAgain

Yah… you’re making that up.

Right cuz you’ve never tried to justify Israel’s acts by comparing them to what an arab nation might do under a similar circumstance.

…Like how you repeated something like a half dozen times how the UN created Israel …you repeated your fiction, several times in fact. Each time changing it just a bit.

So now you’re going to bring up stuff I said (and then shifted positon on after debate) in OTHER threads?

No, of course, after you admitted to instintually filtering any and all information through your standard anti-Israel mindset (also known as “bigotry”) and that you had to fight to actually analyze the facts and not just fit them into reasons why you hated Israel (for which you blamed me, naturally), you’ve totally forgotten it. What luck!

Here, let me remind you.

Do you think taking a post out of context is going to make your argument more credible? Dude, you have about as much credibility on this board when it comes to Israel as Der Trihs has when it comes to religion. Its not that you don’t know your shit, its that your lack of objectivity is fucking legendary.

Of course, I’ve criticized Israel, Jack’s criticized Israel, Malthus has criticized Israel, Captain Amazing has criticized Israel, DSeid has… and none of them are bigots.
Funny, aint it?

You mean you criticized Israel when you said that you disagreed with Israel’s blockade of coriander to Gaza? Those guys you mention who criticize Israel but are not bigots… They’re not critics of Israel… they’re apologists dude, they may be honest apologists but they are not Israel critics. Heck I’ve said good things about Israel, it doesn’t make me an Israel apologist.

@FinnAgain

… you do realize that’s his claim, not necessarily the gospel truth? And that the woman involved had a different claim? She claimed that he introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor (he’s Muslim, and married), and that he was seeking a serious relationship. The court believed her, and found that would qualify as deception used to get sex, which is a crime.

It’s fine to object to the law, but at least keep the facts straight.

The woman involved accused the Palestinian of violently raping her…the prosecutors brought him up on those charges…the cops realized that evidence indicated that it wasn’t violent rape and the woman might not have been telling the truth. Have I got this right so far?

Then when presented with an alternate story by the woman and the Palestinian guy’s version of what happened, the court decided that the guy was obviously lying and the woman’s second story must be the truth and the Palestinian guy goes to jail for 2 years for a charge that legal experts say is “used sparingly and even then in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage.” because he claimed to be a Jewish bachelor looking for a serious relationship to trick the woman into having sex with him.

@Quint

That’s the problem though, this is a classic he said she said situation. What basis did the court have to believe her version of events? Whatever that might have been I would hope that it was hella compelling to cost a man two years behind bars.

Especially considering that the police had reason to believe the woman was lying about the whole violent rape thing.

@DSeid

The courts have convicted Jewish Israelis of this crime; to not convict solely because the lie involved a Palestinian lieing religious identity instead of job status (as it had in the past) when he is clearly guilty of the crime as the law is written, would be ugly.

From the article:
a charge that legal experts say is “used sparingly and even then in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage.”

So in what situations have they used this law to send Jewish men to jail and did they rely on the word of a woman that lied to them the first time around?

@amanset

Nope. They used blackmailed people into having sex, but the sex was consensual. IMHO sex has to be non-consensual for it to be rape.

Blackmail is a form of coercion isn’t it? Consent obtained through coercion isn’t really consent is it?

@Malthus

There may well be cases of unjust laws with institutionalized racist intent or effect in Israel - but this particular case is not one of them.

I agree, the law is facially neutral and was not conceived as a form of racism but on Monday it was applied in a racist manner.

That’s very complementary.

Well you’re sane the problem is that Israel seems to be run by folks like Magellan and Finn Again.

And in this particular case, there is no evidence of racism.

Not even after considering the sequence of events and the other cases when this law was actually applied?

True, but this case alone is not sufficient evidence that it is enforced in a racist manner.

I don’t think it is enforced in a racist manner on a regular basis but I think it may have been in this case.

For the same reason there is here - because it appears, to the uninformed who have not actually thought about it, to be discriminatory.

I’ve thought about it a little bit and I agree that there is a lot on the surface that seems racist but might not be racist upon further reflection. For example, we might all think that the woman was racist but that doesn’t make the verdict racist. But when you add in the fact that the court is relying on the woman’s version of events and rejecting the man’s version of events AFTER the woman had lied to police about violent rape, the if you add to that the fact that this charge is used infrequently and in more severer circumstances, it starts to look racist again.

But what he’s saying isn’t “racist”, it is simply an acknowledgement of reality: the same would be true here in Canada - many Jewish women would be upset if they found out that their lovers were lying about being Jewish just to screw them.

I agree, a person can be as racist as they want about who they sleep with and if the courts had consistently been sending people to jail for lies of this caliber then its still stupid but its not racist. But when this charge had been reserved for protracted fraud that included promises of marriage and then applies it to a one night stand it kinda makes you go hmmmm.

Certainly, if the law was applied in an unjust manner, that would be evidence of prejudice in the system. But that has nothing to do with the law. If for example only Blacks are ever charged with murder and never Whites, the system is racist - but that doesn’t mean the law against murder is racist.

I agree, I don’t think the law is racist.

We only have a single case of someone being charged with this sort of rape for identity - that simply is not evidence of institutionalized racism.

I wasn’t thinking solely of this incident when I compared the situation to apartheid. Not all of apartheid was facially discriminatory laws, it was more than that and I saw this as another example of that sort of thing.

@FinnAgain

Also not true. But, again, the fact that a small coterie who make up the dedicated anti-Israel brigade tend to use dishonesty, ignorance and malice as their weapons of choice doesn’t mean it’s somehow wrong for me to point it out.

Small coterie? More like half the board. You carpet bomb almost everyone that criticizes Israel.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

I think there’s an expectation that the law is a lot more granular than it really is, and that causes confusion. In reality, people do things all the time that are technically prosecutable as one offense or another; they just aren’t prosecuted.

So, for instance, Honesty, the reason it can be called fraud to lie to somebody in order to get sex is that, loosely speaking, fraud only means lying to somebody to get something out of them. So why wouldn’t it be? The law doesn’t say “but not if it’s something obvious like ‘I’ve got a huge wang’” or otherwise require that it be particularly egregious. Ordinarily, that kind of discretion is exercised by some combination of the victim, the police, the DA, and the courts. If all of them feel like taking it seriously, there’s nothing preventing a perfectly by the book conviction for it, which shocks people because it doesn’t match their expectations, only their expectations are naturally based on the practical enforcement of the law, and not the letter. It’s the same with rape – “but that’s OBVIOUSLY not rape!” The thing is, rape has a definition, and the things that fit it do fit it.

I don’t mean to say that the question “why would this be prosecuted” isn’t a good one; just that the question “how is this (crime X)” is generally pretty easy to answer.

For example. Smoking pot was illegal in California when I was in college. The enforcement seemed to be a bit… uneven. How many white college students do you think spent time in California jails for smoking pot? How many poor black guys?

[PrettyVacant]

@DSeid

And it isn’t too hard for a Palestinian to “pass” as a Jew if they want to. Jews come in all shapes and colors from Black to lily white and many other shades.

Plus the fact that DNA has revealed Jews and Palestinians are of the same population, not similar or close but the same population:

The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians

Which doesn’t make all this weird at all… It was weird before, with DNA it’s way beyond weird.

[amanset]

Well he’s posted several times in this thread since I asked - including replies to posts posted after I asked. I guess FinnAgain isn’t going to get back to me and let me know exactly what my “blatant” lies were about.

Does anyone else know? Because I’m utterly stumped.

I guess in the long run it is a good thing. Do I really want another “discussion” with him where he ignores anything I say regarding Palestinians, accuses me of lying, bigotry and being part of an anti-Israel movement, and finishes with the inevitable semantic discussions as his actual points make less and less sense?

Probably not. It is almost the weekend after all and that hot, young Belarusian I’ve been seeing is cooking dinner for me at her place tonight.

[Gyrate]

@Captain_Amazing

It does. As far as I know, it forbids anyone from using deceit to get someone to sleep with you.

It’d be interesting to see that come into play in a statutory rape case where a minor girl lied about her age in order to seduce an adult man. Both parties could technically be guilty of raping each other.

[Laudenum]

If you read FinnAgain as a parody of extreme Israeli defenders, he is still completely OTT.