It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Israeli court says consensual sex between An arab and a Jew is rape.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:13 AM
So, in Israel if a woman is "tricked" into having sex it is rape! That means if I am in a Tel Aviv bar and I lead a lady to believe I have a bit more money than I actually do and we have sex she can have me arrested when she finds out I'm a pauper. Or, if I tell her I'm not married and she finds out I lied I go to prison for rape. Could it be this enterprising guy was charged with rape simply because he was not Jewish? Or perhaps because he is an Arab? No, impossible in a democracy!

[edit on 21-7-2010 by gem_man]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:42 AM
This reminds me of that story from India where a women filed rape charges against a man that had promised to marry her if they had sex. Not sure what the outcome was for that...

I don't believe this story constitutes rape and hope her family/friends can talk some sense into her.

[edit on 21/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:38 AM
Sounds a little bit like the old English law, "BREACH OF PROMISE". A women who was promised marriage, but then denied could sue for compensation, especially if she had given up virginity.

From at least medieval times until the early 20th century, a man's promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in "breach" of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.

The converse of this was seldom true; the concept that "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" had at least some basis in law (though a woman might pay a high social price for exercising this privilege, as explained below) — and unless an actual dowry of money or property had changed hands, a man was unlikely to recover in a "breach of promise" suit against a woman, were he even to be allowed to file one (although there were certainly exceptions to this).

Changing social morals have led to the decline of this sort of action. Most jurisdictions, at least in the English-speaking, common law world, have become increasingly reluctant to intervene in cases of personal relationships not involving the welfare of children or actual violence. Many have repealed all laws regarding such eventualities; whereas in others the statute allowing such an action may technically remain on the books but the action has become very rare and unlikely to be pursued with any probability of success.

Some of the original theory behind this tort was based on the idea that a woman would be more likely to give up her virginity to a man if she had his promise to marry her; if he subsequently refused marriage it was considered that this lack of virginity would make her future search for a suitable mate more difficult or even impossible.

However, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the main factors were compensation for the denial of the woman's expectations of becoming "established" in a household (supported by her husband's wealth), and/or possible damage to her reputation — since there were a number of ways that the reputation of a young never-married woman of the "genteel" classes could be damaged by a broken engagement, or an apparent period of intimacy which did not end in a publicly-announced engagement, even if few people seriously thought that she had lost her virginity. She might be viewed as having broken the code of maidenly modesty of the period by imprudently offering up her affections without having had a firm assurance of future marriage.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by acrux]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:15 AM
If he had not lied about being jewish there would have been no legal basis for the charge of rape.

reply to post by gem_man

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by pacific_waters

Yea but , if he hadn't lied , he wouldn't have gotten the good stuff most likely .

While I doubt this type of case would have the same results here in the U.S. , I also won't pretend to know or interpret the laws of Israel .

Keep in mind , the middle east has laws and customs that seem bizarre to the rest of the world .

If this had happened in one of the neighboring countries , she could have been stoned for adultary .

[edit on 21-7-2010 by okbmd]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:27 AM
reply to post by pacific_waters

Whatever happens no one will be stoned to death or have thier head cut off.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:33 AM
Gideon Levy maked a good point:

What if Jew man will lie to a muslim woman. Will he be charged for rape???
Certainly not! This is pure racism and arabs discrimination.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:52 AM
If he had not lied and admitted he was Arab in the first place this woman would NOT have had consensual sex with him in any shape or form.

When I first read the article, like readers here, many other different senarios also crossed my mind but when I gave this much thought I agree with the decision of the courts. The Arab lied not only about what he is but also he lied when found out he was in fact married.

For a married man to lie by claiming he is umarried to woo a woman in to bed is in fact causing the woman to commit adultery against her knowledge and consent, he too is committing (intentional) adultery. Do you readers know the difference and understand this?

I too would regard this as rape on two counts and freud on two counts.

All too often I hear of stories how (mostly) men lie about being married for sex is not only morally and ethically wrong, without knowledge of the truth then the sex is therefore non-consentual and she is unintentionally committing adultery. These types of men also have to realise they are not only harming the innocent woman by shaming her he is also harming the dignity of his wife, his children (if any) and the very foundations of the family unit.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by Zmurfix

As the law stands, yes if a Jewish man lied and claimed he was an Arab to have sex with an Arab woman, he too would be up for rape.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:01 AM
Israel appears to currently be wrestling with some legal issues and pending legislation about immigration and even who's a real Jew or not. Growing pains of a new nation based on religion, race, and a few other issues, I'm sure. So if this story is true, it would be no surprise they're making this kind of differentiation.

[edit on 7/21/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Zmurfix

As the law stands, yes if a Jewish man lied and claimed he was an Arab to have sex with an Arab woman, he too would be up for rape.

Are you serious? You really think that Israel has same laws for jews and arabs? Then you are living in better world than I am.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:02 AM
I like how there are several instances in this post of things that could happen, different scenarios where things could be applied.

But instead of posting one of them, you AUTOMATICALLY go for the Jew vs Arab thing.......Seriously?

I dont agree with anything in that article, but I also dont agree with the fact that youre using the post to push an agenda.........

~end rant

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:07 AM
Israeli court says consensual sex between An arab and a Jew is rape.

No. It didn't.

Jerusalem District Court ruled that consensual sex between a Jewish woman and an Arab posing as a Jew constituted rape.

It would seem as there's talking points enough in this story.

Headline -

Israel lies

Israel lies on the edge of the Mediterranean

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

The Jerusalem Post's exact headline was: Rape charge for Arab posing as a Jew

"The woman filed a complaint after realizing that Kashur was not Jewish."

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:25 AM
I'm most certainly not here to push any agenda. This all comes down to simple common sense, honesty and intigrity.

I don't know about any of you but I have a daughter and I do not wish for her to find herself in this situation especially unknowingly.

Another thing I'd like to point out, putting the original article aside, what most women don't know is this in a social or busness setting:

when a man says NO, he means NO
when a woman says NO, he thinks she means "lets negotiate"

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:35 AM
The article states that it was CONSENSUAL sex.

Her issue appears to have been only that he was an Arab.

There was no rape here. The only crime here APPEARS to be that he lied. But there appears to be legal precedent there that if you lie, it's rape.

But we don't even know if he lied, do we? There may be only her hearsay evidence of that as far as we know.

...the woman complained to police only after learning he was an Arab.

,,,the Jerusalem District Court said the defendant, "who is married, introduced himself falsely to the complainant as a Jewish bachelor, and as such, interested in a meaningful romantic relationship." precedent in Israel classifying sex by deception as rape was set by the Supreme Court in a 2008 conviction of a man who posed as a government official and persuaded women to have sex with him by promising them state benefits.


[edit on 7/21/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5

Here's a similar story that happened to a family I know about:

Israeli girl meets boy who claims he is (Persian) Bah-Hai and direct decendant to the true exiled Persian royal family.

Israeli girl marries Persian boy

I do some research, very clever research thanks to the help of a real Persian princess (a friend of mine) of the Persian royals in exile (there are approx 3 thousand of them scattered worldwide and this is what I found:

Persian boy is unheard of and no member of any Persian family lineage.

Given some further contacts, I find an interesting development: Persian boy is in fact a Pakistani Muslim.

I relay news to Israeli girl's family.

Family even more devastated. Israeli girl refuses to accept or acknowledge the truth. Israeli girl no longer welcome back in her family. Family cuts all ties.

A case like this, the Muslim husband would'nt be up for rape in Israel but most certainly for fraud.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:54 AM
Wow , and they call us Americans superficial. I guess somewhere along the line people seemed to have forgotten that we are all human beings.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:05 AM
It's interesting how many things are becoming rape/assault now.

I heard that in California, if either party has had any quantity of alcohol, it's rape now.

In many places now, just asking a woman on a date is sexual harassment if they aren't interested, no need to keep asking, or pester them, just asking them once will do.

I expect a huge population decline.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

To the original article:

1. If the woman had prior knowledge the man in question was in fact an Arab, would she had had consensual sex? If no to the question then this is rape, indecent assault and fraud.

2. If the woman had prior knowledge the man in question was in fact married, would she had had consensual sex? If no to the question then this is fraud.

3. If she had prior knowledge the man was in fact Arab and he denied he was married, would she have had consensual sex? If no to the question then this is fraud.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in