A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew. Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left. When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault. Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish. The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added (...) Gideon Levy, a liberal Israeli commentator, was quoted as saying: "I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman? "Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not."
Amazing, no? First, it is always amusing when any state decides to get involved in consensual sexual relations between two adults. The results of such interventions are inevitably ridiculous. Second, it is quite clear that whatever happened between these two happened in private with no third parties involved. Then how did the court establish that deception had taken place? The court did exactly what Rabbinical law dictates: it took the word of the Jew and simply ignored any and all statements of the goy.
Needless to say, the real point of all this nonsense is exactly what Petty Apartheid or Jim Crow laws in the USA was all about:
Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55 of 1949, prohibiting marriage between white people and people of other races. The Immorality Amendment Act 21 of 1950 (as amended in 1957 by Act 23) forbade "unlawful racial intercourse" and "any immoral or indecent act" between a white person and an African, Indian or coloured person.
Intermarriage: All marriages between a white person and a Negro person or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.
Cohabitation: Any Negro man and white women, or any white man and Negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars.
Of course, the technicalities are different here. Petty Apartheid and Jim Crow laws were designed to prevent long-term relationships between races (5000+ lynchings in the USA took care of issue of short-term relationships). In the Israeli case, the aim is not so much to prevent inter-racial sex as much as it is to make darn sure that goyim cannot deceive Jews about their inferior (semi-animal according to Rabbinical tradition) status. Apparently, any other form of deceptions used to obtain sex are okay by the Israeli courts.
If all this was not so disgusting and offensive, it would be outright hilarious. But then, all manifestations or racism are always a mix of ridiculous and abhorent.
As Norman Finkelstein predicted, soon the very word "Israel" or "Israeli" will make the people's skin crawl with disgust. It's about time.