RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Ionizer]

For the record, I have never been anti- much of anything when it comes to blanket 'hatred' or accusing-of-being-bad. Except for baby-fuckers and other such scum that bring it upon themselves. Religion is definitely something I 'tolerate' and won't judge persons individually or by nationality with a widely thrown net-of-presumption.

I really have no idea if the 'culture' of 'average Joe/Jane' in Israel is such that a name, particularly Daniel (or DuDu - is it pronounced dud-duh or doo-doo? honestly curious/snarkiness won't help as it does cry out for jokes referencing piles of feces) is seen as tending to indicate 'Jewishness', and when I use word Jewishness its not meant as 'bad thing'. If I ask if it indicates Israeli citizenship, it'd leave open possibility of someone not 'jew' being named Daniel and other 'loopholed answers, if my narrowing of asked-for answer helps keep assumptive judgement of my intent-for-asking to a dull whisper at most.

Thanks for helping me know more about 'average Israeli Jew' as I am trying/wanting to be anti-Semite (of which I absolutely am not) and not pre-judging a 'culture/national identity' of which I *know* little about other than what I read/hear. A poster's 'credibility-index' allows me to give weight to what is answered, of course.

Thank so much for those staying on-target to this point (which seems to be important afaik) to Mr Kashur's case) as far as judging-by-name, imho. If I meet a man named, say, Mohammad that kneels/prays a few times a day, I'm pretty certain he's 'Muslim', but I would not 'take that to the bank', court particularly, if it helps illustrate my angle of the asking. I'd ask him clearly about it *if* it was something that mattered to the Nth-degree. Did *she* ask or assume??





And shit

 

[Jackmannii]

I'd like a clarification by some neutrals as to what makes a person an anti-semite. I thought actions were what makes a person who they are, not thoughts unacted upon?

I accept posting my thoughts on here is an action, but can anyone seriously say they are an act of hatred?

I'll take onboard anyone's opinion other than Flail Angrily's, regarding this matter.

It's just one of those unfair situations you've got to deal with here on the Dope, Ivan, and also to some extent in real life.

If you make bigoted assholish remarks here, someone is bound to call you on them, even if you don't make them in every post (for instance, you've contributed some decent lyrics to The Reply Is A Song Lyric thread). As some contributors to Middle East threads have sorrowfully noted, you can't make bigoted assholish remarks about Israel without some nasty person referring to them as bigoted and assholish - sometimes implying you are a bigoted asshole or even directly labeling you as one, even if you haven't actually gone out and beaten or killed anybody!

It's intellectual apartheid, is what it is.

Anyway, I feel badly for ivan, now that he's revealed (in connection with Third Jihad fears) that there are Muslims under his bed as well as Jews. With a volatile combination like that there's got to be a lot of noise and fussing, and it's a wonder ivan gets any sleep at all. Unsurprisingly he's confused and cranky.

Let the boy be.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

Question: if you don't think the rockets are raining down on Israel and you don't think there are loads of suicide attacks in Israel (according to Wikipedia the most recent one was 2.5 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks) how can you justify the way Israel treats Palestine, especially the Gaza Strip?

What actually are the Palestinians doing that justifies the way they are treated?

Well, wouldn't you then say that the treatment has been successful ?

 

[Malthus]

Uh, that's exactly what I was trying to say -- that a twin switching WOULD constitute rape by deception. DUH. In other words, I can see where this law WOULD work in certain cases. (Such as the case of a twin pretending to be his brother and fucking said brother's wife) But in the case listed in the OP? NO.

GAH!!!

To my mind, it's a bit of a slippery slope. I agree that the law ought to be restricted to certain defined cases, but I find it difficult to articulate exactly why, other than that the one 'feels' right and the other does not.

For example, lying about the *exact* identity of a person (pretending to be someone's husband or wife) seems more rightly actionable than lying in general about who you are (example: saying you are single when you are married). Yet in both cases, "but for" the lie, arguably no sex would have occurred.

 

[heatmiserfl]

I can't tell by wading around the fight between FinnAgain and everyone else, so can someone help me out?

Is it true that an Israeli woman hooked up with a man in a bar, then went to the police when she found out he was Palestinian? Is it also true that he was charged and imprisoned with rape based on a law on the books regarding fraudulent identity?

If the above is true, how is this not state-sanctioned bigotry? Why are people quibbling over the notion that the law originally had another purpose? I don't care. The fact is that it was applied by the state to persecute someone based on race/ethnicity. There's no excuse for it. The judge's rationalization is chilling and makes me wonder how often the state looks the other way or actively participates in ethnic discrimination within Israel (of course it's a no-brainer regarding the West Bank and Gaza).

 

[ivan astikov]

Anyway, I feel badly for ivan, now that he's revealed (in connection with Third Jihad fears) that there are Muslims under his bed as well as Jews. With a volatile combination like that there's got to be a lot of noise and fussing, and it's a wonder ivan gets any sleep at all. Unsurprisingly he's confused and cranky.

Let the boy be.

Yes, that's right. I'm so confused and cranky I can barely type this post without smacking my keyboard.

 

[Malthus]

I can't tell by wading around the fight between FinnAgain and everyone else, so can someone help me out?

Is it true that an Israeli woman hooked up with a man in a bar, then went to the police when she found out he was Palestinian? Is it also true that he was charged and imprisoned with rape based on a law on the books regarding fraudulent identity?

If the above is true, how is this not state-sanctioned bigotry? Why are people quibbling over the notion that the law originally had another purpose? I don't care. The fact is that it was applied by the state to persecute someone based on race/ethnicity. There's no excuse for it. The judge's rationalization is chilling and makes me wonder how often the state looks the other way or actively participates in ethnic discrimination within Israel (of course it's a no-brainer regarding the West Bank and Gaza).

The law is that someone who lies about a factor they know the other person is relying on in relation to themselves in order to get sex is guilty, because such a lie means the consent was not meaningful.

A fellow hooked up with a Jewish women. That fellow lied about his identity. He claimed to be a Jewish single (in fact, he was a married non-Jew) they had sex. The woman claims she would not have had sex with him if she'd known he was a married non-Jew. These facts are not in doubt, as he pled guilty and is appealing based on the harsh sentence (not because he didn't in fact lie, or because he thinks the lie wasn't material).

As I've said repeatedly, I don't think the law is a good one. It is over-inclusive. Not all liars ought to be jailed for it; I do not agree with this verdict, because I disagree with the justice of the law; lots of married folks pretend to be single and it is not a good use of the criminal justice system to charge them all. However, under this law he's without a doubt guilty. On its face, persecution based on racism has nothing to do with it (though of course the judge etc. may well be racist, this cannot be demonstrated by the facts actually in evidence).

 

[sinical brit]

Well, what a completely fucked-up thread.

I happen to think this is a really interesting story and would like to debate it. However, I find myself having to trawl through the biggest pile of repetitive shite i have ever had the misfortune to read.


Anyway - there is an interview with him here. The article states:

"Kushour speaks fluent, unaccented Hebrew, as do many Palestinians living and working in Jerusalem. The woman asked his name and Kushour replied "Dudu" – a common Israeli name. "Since I was a kid everyone calls me Dudu – even my wife calls me Dudu. It's a nickname." At no point, he says, did the woman – who gave her name as Maya – ask if he was Jewish, although he has acknowledged that he said he was single." Bolding mine.

If she didnt ask, and he didnt say, how can he be found guilty for something she presumed ? Isnt 'buyer beware' valid here ?

Analogy: What if he sold her a car on the Monday. She gets a large cc bill in on the Tuesday and realises she cant afford said car. Can she then ring the police on the Wednesday and cry deception and that she would never have purchased a vehicle off an Arab ?

 

[Malthus]

Well, what a completely fucked-up thread.

I happen to think this is a really interesting story and would like to debate it. However, I find myself having to trawl through the biggest pile of repetitive shite i have ever had the misfortune to read.


Anyway - there is an interview with him here. The article states:

"Kushour speaks fluent, unaccented Hebrew, as do many Palestinians living and working in Jerusalem. The woman asked his name and Kushour replied "Dudu"

 

[Villa]

Why would a guy who did *not* in fact lie claim to feel "bad about what he did", or make the argument that lying about being a pilot etc. shouldn't amount to rape? Why would he be arguing that the *punishment for what he did* was too severe?

Well you asked why a person would confess to something that they did not do. People do it for lots of reasons, and for crimes carrying a hell of a lot more serious penalty.

It seems from his comments he did lie. Whether that in and of itself meets the elements of the crime, I don't know, and unless I see the law itself, I will never know.

I'll admit to being a little jaded on the criminal justice system in general after a decision in a case I worked on came down last week. My belief in justice in any country is at a ridiculously low level.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

And you'd be wrong. Neither is an accusation of anti-semitism.
An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews and/or believes negative things about them as a group.

So we aren''t anti-semites, we are just people who say things about Israel that we wouldn't say if Israel was full of blacks instead of being full of Jews? Or we are content tostand by while anti-semites say anti-semitic things because, well, they are jews after all.

And while I'm at it, I've called out Sam Stone, for instance, over his errors when he's taken a pro-Israel position on a few occasions. How many of the anti-Israel brigade here have ever done the same for people arguing an anti-Israel position?

I remember people jumping down that one guy's throat. English was obviously his second language, I forget his name. I corrected a few people about teh whole "baording the maru is illegal!!" thing. I think there is plenty of balance here without you getting shrill in your defense of Israel.

Honestly what would the reaction be if we changed your admission of anti-Israel bigotry to one of kneejerk anti-gay (or black, or whoever) bigotry?

I think you are confusing racism and anti-israeli sentiment. A racist is going to hate a black man no matter what he does. I will stop criticizing Israel if Israel stops being an asshole. I think a better analogy would be to admit that your general criticisms of the teabaggers became a kneejerk reaction because of Mark Williams.

Now if I had said that your rantings have made me a have a kneejerk hatred for Jews, then that would be a decent analogy but since you aren't calling me an anti-semite ...

No, they kept bringing it up. And even if they didn't, what does that tell you that people will automatically make certain accusations without bothering to check the facts first? It wasn't exactly hard. The search terms? "International law maritime blockade, -israel".

If you'll recall, almost noone in the media giot that fact straight either. I don't remember anyone from teh major news sources even mentioning the San Remo manual.

In the very thread you were just discussing, I mentioned many times that I thought that the blockade was needlessly harsh and caused undue suffering among the people of Gaza.

You're right, you did call certain aspects fo the blockade stupid. I had been qualifying this statement with that example (I mention your criticiasm of the blockade of coriander) but I left it out this time. It was unfair to say you NEVER criticize Israel.

if Israel didn't halt all settlement expansion immediately that the US should turn off the spigot and case all aid. Just a few posts later, Red Fury was back trolling me and claiming that I never criticize Israel and support everything they do. And, predictably, the anti-Israel posters in the thread didn't call him to task.

I don't know if i was part of that thread but are you saying that the settlements are wrong or are you saying that the settlements are provoking the US?

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

What actually are the Palestinians doing that justifies the way they are treated?

Its what they are NOT doing. They aren't rounding up hamas leaders and handing them over to the Israelis.

Personally I am still waiting for the Palestinian Gandhi to emerge and march a bunch of Palestinians towards the checkpoint surrounding Gaza and let the IDF beat the crap out of them. Do this in front of camera a few times and you get to draw the new map of Israel (as long as Jerusalem is at least split between Israel and Palestine).

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

lots of married folks pretend to be single and it is not a good use of the criminal justice system to charge them all. However, under this law he's without a doubt guilty. On its face, persecution based on racism has nothing to do with it (though of course the judge etc. may well be racist, this cannot be demonstrated by the facts actually in evidence).

If lots of marries folks lie about being married, then why this guy? Why this time? You can't prove racism here because the law does apply and there isn't a long history of this law being applied like this one way or the other (so my previous analogy of drug laws being selectively enforced against blacks is not really on point). Is this simply the first time that someone has been caught lying about being married?

 

[newcomer]

Personally I am still waiting for the Palestinian Gandhi to emerge and march a bunch of Palestinians towards the checkpoint surrounding Gaza and let the IDF beat the crap out of them. Do this in front of camera a few times and you get to draw the new map of Israel (as long as Jerusalem is at least split between Israel and Palestine).

What makes you think that even if that would happen things would roll out as they did in India?

Knowing what we know about this conflict -- the most obvious thing being that Israelis are not British -- how can anyone come up with this idea for conflict resolution is beyond me.

 

[heatmiserfl]

The law is that someone who lies about a factor they know the other person is relying on in relation to themselves in order to get sex is guilty, because such a lie means the consent was not meaningful.

I don't care that he's being convicted for lying. The fact is, he lied about being Palestinian. Obviously, a Jew wouldn't have to lie about being Jewish. In other words, the woman thought a Palestinian was below her and the state supported the woman's racism. If it was only because he was married, the judge wouldn't have said what he did regarding a "Jewish Batchelor". The judge should have said that the state does not get involved in matters of consent based on race/ethnicity.

What is chilling, which seems to go over some people's head, is that some of the comments seemed so matter of fact. It's sort of a given that Palestinians are a step down.

 

[RedFury]

...What is chilling, which seems to go over some people's head, is that some of the comments seemed so matter of fact. It's sort of a given that Palestinians are a step down.

Hardly "chilling" when you consider it's a fact w/many an Israeli and hard-core supporters of same. For fucks sake, it's exactly how they've been running their "democracy" for many a year.

However I do agree that the amount of support Israel gets from The Usual Suspects on here is indeed, mindless. Might as well have, in many cases, drones posting instead.

 

[Malthus]

I don't care that he's being convicted for lying. The fact is, he lied about being Palestinian. Obviously, a Jew wouldn't have to lie about being Jewish.

Obviously they would - if they were a Jewish guy and wanted to have sex with a nationalistic Arab woman.

In other words, the woman thought a Palestinian was below her and the state supported the woman's racism.

A woman is perfectly entitled to be as racist as a whole barrel of KKK members regarding who she will sleep with.

If it was only because he was married, the judge wouldn't have said what he did regarding a "Jewish Batchelor". The judge should have said that the state does not get involved in matters of consent based on race/ethnicity.

Why should lying about one's ethnicity be privileged over lying about one's job or marital status?

What is chilling, which seems to go over some people's head, is that some of the comments seemed so matter of fact. It's sort of a given that Palestinians are a step down.

Not a "given" at all. It is simply a "given' that some women would find the ethnicity of their partner an important consideration. Really, is that controversial?

 

[Villa]

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.

 

[heatmiserfl]

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.

Exactly. Malthus, you insist on glossing over this point. The state is not only assisting in racism but in an extreme way. The guy is charged with rape. I wonder what happens in a prison when a Palestinian is charged with raping a Jewish woman.

 

[FinnAgain]

Simply an amusing aside:

[quote] Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It[/quote]