Indeed I see no reason to think that this is anything other than a neutral application of a flawed law. My head scratching goes to the point that the man settled with this as a plea bargain. He admitted to it, and agreed to the 18 months sentence.
Now I readily admit that there have been instances that count as systemic discrimination against Palestinians in Israel. Thing is it has usually been the Israeli court system bringing the government to task for those instances. The Israeli court system is pretty damn good and even handed. If this man admitted to "rape by fraud" then he did at least that. I wonder more if how this went down was that the woman was given a really rather typical rape victim treatment - "your word against his word, no proof, say it was consensual and we avoid having to have you and your sexual history raked over the coals in court and he still goes to jail on this lesser charge." But I don't know that any more than you know any of what really happened.
Again, I want to point out, it is to me fairly indisputable that there is some systemic discrimination against minority citizens in Israel. The examples are pretty easy to document and indeed many human rights organizations claim, likely with good cause, that Arab citizens receive stiffer sentences for the same crimes than do Jewish citizens. I am sure that the statistical evidence for sentencing in general would show the same sort of pattern as the Black/White sentencing in drug cases that was noted above. But that does not mean that this case is an example of that and presuming it is, presenting it as his being "jailed for being Palestinian", is very unfair. It isn't like real cases of discrimination in Israel do not exist. Use those ones.
Actually what it says is that, predictably, you've decided to start lying, no doubt as part of a bit of your standard trolling so that now you can clutch at your wounded breast and moan about how very unfair it is that I've pointed out that you're lying. It's a neat trick, and an admitted pedophile like you would probably get upset about someone deliberately crafting dishonest accusations in order to get upset that they're called a liar. Why, I bet that now you'll say I'm lying and that you aren't really a pedophile. Predictable.
Rather obviously, you're just making shit up. Nobody on this board accepts everything Israel does without question. Most likely, nobody in the world does either. But that's one of your pack of jackals' standard lies when it comes to this topic, anybody who doesn't demonize Israel properly must, of course, support everything they do always.
Just like your "Oh please oh please oh please call me an anti-Semite!" idiocy.
Yeah, that's the kind of habitual dishonesty that I'm talking about, thanks for the object lesson. "Why, the OP wasn't even about Israel and sure the very first thing that the OP says and that everybody sees is the lie that a Palestinian man was jailed for simply being a Palestinian, but it was in the title not in the OP, and it's a lie that supports my hatred of Israel, so it's cool!"
Why don't you go start another ATMB thread where you whine about how I'm allow to insult you in the Pit?
Of course, you are an anti-Israel shill and you are objecting to someone being called for for lying because that lie supports your anti-Israel bias.
Yes, as already noted, you are a partisan shill without a shred of personal honor or honesty when it comes to your hatred of Israel. Of course a blatant lie is mere "hyperbole", a word whose definition you rather obviously don't know despite your babble about dictionaries. And, of course, as you're just a partisan whore, you'd be up in arms if someone claimed that Israel is totally justified since all Palestinians are terrorists. You're just a shill who'll support one set of lies as "hyperbole" and another as something you just won't stand for (because it doesn't support the narrative you're shilling for, natch).
Where? Where is this information recorded that it's supposed to be so easy for me to find?I did answer it.
This is an evasion of the question and the issue. "Yeah, but Muslims are eeeeevil, does not get Israel off the hook for its own Jim Crow practices.wondered briefly what would be the prison sentence for a Jewish guy who tried conning a Muslim woman in this fashion in a Muslim nation in the Middle East. The difficult with imaging such a scenario is 1) the virtual absence of Jews in any of these countries due to their having been driven from their homes after 1948, and 2) the likelihood that the "sentence" would be death by stoning for both man and woman.
It isn't complicated, it's called Apartheid. We've seen it before, whether in 1930s Germany or late 20th century South Africa.
Supported by the USA to the tune of about $120 each year for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
Wow. Now I'm lying?
You sir have been shown to do so. You are routinely asked to give examples of Israeli actions you disagreed with and routinely you do not give any.
1. I never said the OP wasn't about Israel.
See, here AGAIN are you calling me a shill and anti-Israel, just like you did earlier but you then called me a liar for saying you had.
So let me see. I laid out quite clearly for you what my views on the Middle East are.
So is it fraud if someone lies about being married or says "I love you" if they don't.
This judge sounds like the modern Israeli equivalent of a Jim Crow redneck from the 1950's. How typical is that? "Unbearable price?" What was the price? "Serious romantic relationship?" She was a pickup at a bar, is he fucking kidding?Although conceding that the sex was consensual, district court judge Tzvi Segal 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.
Ah, a man of integrity.
When people lie and are called and it, and other evince bigotry, don't call them on lying or bigotry, get upset with the guy who notices and points it out.
Obviously, the fact that many people on this board are bigoted against Israel and/or lie to support that narrative reflects very poorly on me.
You're so smart.
\
Laudenum, your untruthful statement was stating that he was "jailed for being Palestinian"; that is untrue - he was jailed for fraudulently representing himself to get sex according to the same law that has jailed Jewish Israelis on the same charge.
How much effort do people have to expend hammering dishonesty and prejudice elsewhere before they get to call you an asshole?
Idiots are free to call me an asshole for minding liars and bigots.
Of course, they're generally the actual assholes as they don't mind lying or bigotry, but do mind someone pointing it out.
And, of course your question is rather disingenuous. How about: at least ever, at all. Most of the folks whiniing about how bigots get called bigots or liars get called out for lying haven't posted, even once, ever, to challenge that shit since either it's on their "side" or they don't care about the facts but boy oh boy the accusations annoy them.
Actually, since the Israeli woman (almost certainly) has had military training and the Palestinian man (almost certainly) has not, I figure a fairer (or at least more entertaining) solution would be to Thunderdome it.
This is an evasion of the question and the issue. "Yeah, but Muslims are eeeeevil, does not get Israel off the hook for its own Jim Crow practices.
The thing is, though, under Pennsylvania law, that he had to force into her did not make it rape. That she didn't tell him to stop because she was terrified of being sent back to juvie meant it could not result in a rape conviction. If she was terrified because he held a gun to her head, then the conviction would have been upheld. That's the traditional legal view of rape by the way - that both force and absence of consent are required.
Malthus said:Are you contending that rape by fraud isn't a crime in America? Because I can assure you, it is in some states. See the (lengthy) article on this very topic I posted upthread.
First of all, the case described in the OP is highly unusual and controversial, so it's not surprising that exact precedent is not turning up.Sure, but none of the situations covered by that paper are even remotely analogous to this one.