Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew [Archive]

Sasha

21st July 2010, 16:22

Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

A man has been sentenced to 18 months in prison after telling a woman that he was also Jewish

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/7/21/1279668341792/Jerusalems-old-city-walls-006.jpg Jerusalem's old city walls. Arabs constitute about 20% of Israel's population, but relationships between Jews and Arabs are rare. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/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.
Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.
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.
The court ruled that Kashur should receive a jail term and rejected the option of a six-month community service order. He was said to be seeking to appeal.
Segal said: "The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price."
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."
Arabs constitute about 20% of Israel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/israel)'s population, but relationships between Jews and Arabs are rare. There are few mixed neighbourhoods or towns, and Arabs suffer routine discrimination.
Israeli MPs are considering a law requiring prospective Israeli citizens to declare loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish, democratic state". Many Arabs would balk at swearing allegiance to a state which they see as explicitly excluding or marginalising them.
Dan Meridor, a deputy prime minister in Binyamin Netanyahu's government, is opposed to the proposal. "Why does every bill need the word 'Jewish' in it – to show the Arab citizens that it doesn't belong to them? Then we're all shocked when they radicalise their stance.
"The majority doesn't need to remind the minority that it is in fact a minority all the time," he added.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

so how is israel not an full-blown apartheid state

h0m0revolutionary

21st July 2010, 17:41

Sasha

21st July 2010, 17:50

good point.

and i actualy agree with the GBH charge (it happend here in the netherlands too).
offcourse this guy is an lying piece of shit, and yeah, the women has an right to hold an grudge (for being lied too, not for being an racist piece of shit). lets call them pieces of shit allround and for what its worth it they could sue the hell out of each other for all that i care.
but its not rape.
its like sex when drunk but not hammerd, it might maybe in some case be taking advantage off, and the question wil always be if it was full informed consent but its not rape.

but this is not about the women, or the man, or even the sex act.
this is about the travesty of justice. the crimal law system misused to strengthen apartheid.

Dimentio

21st July 2010, 18:37

I think it would have been more honest to label the verdict "sentenced to eighteen months in jail for miscenegation and desecration of the Jewish race". :laugh:

freepalestine

21st July 2010, 18:41

to comments 2 and 3..for fks sake!!!!
get fkin real...

Dimentio

21st July 2010, 18:44

This case isn't unique to Israel actually, there are very few cases around the world where you can legally retroactively withdraw consent. Here in the UK for example five years ago a man was jailed for Grievous Bodily Harm after lying about his HIV status (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1420261/)

Of course I don't agree with the man being charged, but to be fair to his 'victim' she had actively sought to determine that he was a Jew and he lied. The consent was therefore given with a precondition. If you have been given to believe that someone has a particular quality and you consent to sex on those grounds, and then you subsequently discover they had knowingly lied to you, can it be said that you ever gave informed consent in the first place?

Then I think that about fifty percent of the one night stands could be accounted as "rape". Especially guys tend to exaggerate and lie in order to make it happen.

HIV is another matter. If the guy in question had HIV or any other veneric disease, and did not tell the woman, he should probably get some punishment since he then would adventure the physical health of the woman. As for what happened now, obviously she was attracted to him - she wouldn't have any sexual relations to a Jew just for him being a Jew, but because of actual attraction.

Last time I checked, being Arab is not equivalent to HIV, and would not have any mental or physical effects on any partner - if they aren't racist of course. In short, the court ruled the verdict to satisfy the woman's hurt racist feelings.

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmlaw2.html

dawt

21st July 2010, 18:45

According to the BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186), the dude said the woman just assumed he was jewish because of his nickname. Anyhow, the verdict is sickening.

freepalestine

21st July 2010, 18:48

According to the BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186), the dude said the woman just assumed he was jewish because of his nickname. Anyhow, the verdict is sickening.hmm??,enuff said.

Glenn Beck

21st July 2010, 18:55

This case isn't unique to Israel actually, there are very few cases around the world where you can legally retroactively withdraw consent. Here in the UK for example five years ago a man was jailed for Grievous Bodily Harm after lying about his HIV status (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1420261/)

Of course I don't agree with the man being charged, but to be fair to his 'victim' she had actively sought to determine that he was a Jew and he lied. The consent was therefore given with a precondition. If you have been given to believe that someone has a particular quality and you consent to sex on those grounds, and then you subsequently discover they had knowingly lied to you, can it be said that you ever gave informed consent in the first place?

Jeez, you suck pretty bad. Are you so tone deaf you just failed to notice the massive cultural and institutional cloud of naked bigotry and ethnic supremacism hanging over this case, or do you just not care?

I mean you are comparing lying to someone about your ethnicity because you live in a racist shithole of a society to lying to someone about having HIV and then spreading it to them. Do you think getting fucked by an Arab is as bad as getting fucked by someone with HIV? What the hell is wrong with you, man.

Tablo

21st July 2010, 19:22

Here is an Al Jazeera report where they interview some crazy person.
3O0aRE6fcaE

Glenn Beck

21st July 2010, 20:31

Here is an Al Jazeera report where they interview some crazy person.
3O0aRE6fcaE

Jesus fucking Christ holy crap.

I need to wash my ears out after hearing such absolute madness.

this is an invasion

21st July 2010, 20:46

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.

lol

The Red Next Door

21st July 2010, 20:57

This is some Bullshit,

Wanted Man

21st July 2010, 21:06

Jeez, you suck pretty bad. Are you so tone deaf you just failed to notice the massive cultural and institutional cloud of naked bigotry and ethnic supremacism hanging over this case, or do you just not care?

I mean you are comparing lying to someone about your ethnicity because you live in a racist shithole of a society to lying to someone about having HIV and then spreading it to them. Do you think getting fucked by an Arab is as bad as getting fucked by someone with HIV? What the hell is wrong with you, man.

Well, in fairness, h0m0revolutionary did not say that; all he did was justify the racist attitude of the "victim". So it's not that bad. :rolleyes:

Hey I also always ask cute white girls whether they are Dutch, because I wouldn't want to accidentally consent to and enjoy having sex with a German or an English girl. :rolleyes:

counterblast

21st July 2010, 21:06

its like sex when drunk but not hammerd, it might maybe in some case be taking advantage off, and the question wil always be if it was full informed consent but its not rape.

Any sexual act where one or more of the individuals involved cannot give full consent because of intoxication or mental incapability is rape; plain and simple.

There is no such thing as "half-rape". Either consent was present or it wasn't.

The logic behind the rape allegation in the OP is absolutely laughable, and it should be obvious that the charge is racially motivated.

If this sort of argument (ie: I slept with him thinking _____) held up universally; every woman who has ever had a one night stand under the pretense that the man she took home "wanted a relationship", would have a rape suit.

This can't really be compared to the AIDS case (which itself is not rape), but life endangerment.

M-26-7

21st July 2010, 21:20

This case isn't unique to Israel actually, there are very few cases around the world where you can legally retroactively withdraw consent. Here in the UK for example five years ago a man was jailed for Grievous Bodily Harm after lying about his HIV status (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1420261/)

Because being Arab is just like having AIDS. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if you say "I never said that!". This was an idiotic comparison to make, plain and simple.

Of course I don't agree with the man being charged...

No shit.

...but to be fair to his 'victim' she had actively sought to determine that he was a Jew and he lied. The consent was therefore given with a precondition. If you have been given to believe that someone has a particular quality and you consent to sex on those grounds, and then you subsequently discover they had knowingly lied to you, can it be said that you ever gave informed consent in the first place?

No one in the thread that I can see is questioning this woman's right to choose sex partners by whatever idiotic racial criteria she chooses, they are only questioning whether the state should institutionalize her insane racist beliefs by charging the man--so why did you even bother to write all this, if you really "don't agree with the man being charged"?

Hiratsuka

21st July 2010, 21:39

Beyond lying about having an STD, I don't think conditional consent like this should hold up in court, but I could see the other side to this. Unfortunately, I'm sure plenty of men and women lie to get someone in their pants.

-A-kRud-A-

22nd July 2010, 01:32

This case isn't unique to Israel actually, there are very few cases around the world where you can legally retroactively withdraw consent. Here in the UK for example five years ago a man was jailed for Grievous Bodily Harm after lying about his HIV status

Of course I don't agree with the man being charged, but to be fair to his 'victim' she had actively sought to determine that he was a Jew and he lied. The consent was therefore given with a precondition. If you have been given to believe that someone has a particular quality and you consent to sex on those grounds, and then you subsequently discover they had knowingly lied to you, can it be said that you ever gave informed consent in the first place?

Why do you support the "green revolution"? And can you explain why you compared a person with aids knowingly having sex with a person to an arab having sex with a jew?

what do you say about the kids who killed the transgendered kid after they learned she was not like them? Did she deserve to be punished?

Quail

22nd July 2010, 01:49

I don't think that you can call this rape. If she consented at the time, then she consented to having sex with this man. Him not being jewish shouldn't make any difference. It just seems as though this woman is being racist. Comparing the situation to someone who doesn't declare that they have HIV and risks someone else's health isn't appropriate though.

Having said that, I can see both sides of the argument. Having sex with someone and then discovering that a condition of your consent was actually a lie could make you feel violated. I just don't think that this equates to rape, where you don't make a decision on whether or not you have sex, you're just forced to regardless. The woman did choose to consent, and trusted the man to be telling the truth. People definitely don't always tell the truth when they want to have sex with a stranger, and it's up to you whether or not you decide to trust what people are saying. However, sex does make a deception more of a violation.

Sorry if that didn't make much sense. I'm not always that good at explaining myself and may have rambled.

Adi Shankara

22nd July 2010, 02:06

what I love is how they say "Arab has sex with a jew". Not even Muslim, but "Arab".

We're supposed to call Israel a democracy, but can you imagine our newspapers if it said "WOMAN FILES RAPE CHARGE AGAINST MAN WITH AFRICAN BLOOD"? everyone would rightfully be screaming against such fascist bullcrap.

Can the Israel booster club claim that it's not a racially based apartheid state anymore now?

Adi Shankara

22nd July 2010, 02:20

Of course I don't agree with the man being charged, but to be fair to his 'victim' she had actively sought to determine that he was a Jew and he lied. The consent was therefore given with a precondition. If you have been given to believe that someone has a particular quality and you consent to sex on those grounds, and then you subsequently discover they had knowingly lied to you, can it be said that you ever gave informed consent in the first place?

dude, if no one ever lied in order to get laid, the world's population would be zero, because no one would ever be getting laid.

This case isn't unique to Israel actually, there are very few cases around the world where you can legally retroactively withdraw consent. Here in the UK for example five years ago a man was jailed for Grievous Bodily Harm after lying about his HIV status (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1420261/)

Please tell me you did NOT just compare having sex with an arab to having sex with someone who has HIV/AIDs. I never knew having sex with an Arab is the equivalent of having sex with someone who can give you a life threatening disease with no cure! :rolleyes:

why are there so many bigoted statements towards Middle Easterners on Revleft? anti-Arab statement after anti-Arab statement on this forum. making me lose faith.

progressive_lefty

22nd July 2010, 03:00

That's why Finkelstein says 'Satanic State' for all those people wondering.

meow

22nd July 2010, 03:10

as i said in the thread i started http://www.revleft.com/vb/rape-decieti-t138893/index.html (posted 20 minutes first).

maybe could say fraud but not rape.
and what if sweet talk lead astray not innocent people? is that a problem? this women obviously not innocent by the meaning the court mean.
basically this is fucked up. is is certainly racism.

if you have sex when you have aids and infect another person deliberatly that is wrong. that is almost like assult. but if there was no physical damage to the other partner (which in this case no) than no crime.

Wanted Man

22nd July 2010, 08:08

So anyway, in a state that is predicated on racism, is it really surprising for the justice system to make race-based judgements?

Here is an Al Jazeera report where they interview some crazy person.
3O0aRE6fcaE

How dumb is this? The person being interviewed is part of a crisis centre for anyone who feels they were sexually assaulted, so she claims that it's not up to her to judge, race doesn't enter into it, etc. Yet one minute later, she's defending the verdict. Completely insane.

Yes, it is indeed important that people like her are there to assist anyone who feels they were sexually assaulted, but that does not automatically mean that the "perpetrator" deserves a jail sentence. So I don't see why they even bothered interviewing this person, when her status as a representative of this organisation is completely irrelevant to the case.

So anyway, people in Israel had better be careful about what they say before sex from now on. "Yes, this is a real Armani shirt." ===> rape!

22nd July 2010, 08:54

So anyway, in a state that is predicated on racism, is it really surprising for the justice system to make race-based judgements?

Not at all. It is a racist, apartheid state behaving like a racist, apartheid state. Anyone who finds this surprising has almost certainly not been paying attention.

can you imagine our newspapers if it said "WOMAN FILES RAPE CHARGE AGAINST MAN WITH AFRICAN BLOOD"? everyone would rightfully be screaming against such fascist bullcrap.
Yeah, it's not like this sort of thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emmett_Till) was ever commonplace anywhere in the US.
It is interesting, though, how your "anti-Zionism" seems to only find expression through some sort of subtle US patriotism.

Leo

22nd July 2010, 11:43

A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/rape) after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.

Of course the irony here is that, we are supposed to believe that this is rape, but what is done to Palestinian female prisoners by their Israeli interrogators isn't.

what I love is how they say "Arab has sex with a jew". Not even Muslim, but "Arab".

Uhh... I don't think "Arab" itself is a term of insult.

Not at all. It is a racist, apartheid state behaving like a racist, apartheid state. Anyone who finds this surprising has almost certainly not been paying attention.

I have always been a bit surprised by the comparison between the South African apartheid state and Israel. While undoubtedly there are some similarities (the main one being the practice of intense disgusting national oppression), certainly the state of Israel has a much higher figure of those massacred compared to the apartheid regime. The Palestinian situation I always thought is more comparable to the situation of the Kurds in Turkey and until the 90ies Iraq (incidentally states both of which has committed more ethnic massacres than Israel did), with the high level of violence of the dominant states, the similarity of slurs and negationist policies against the targeted group, in the case of Turkey with the claims of democracy, with the identific concepts of intifada and serhildan, with the similarities between the behaviors of nationalist organizations supposedly defending the interests of the oppressed group, the fact that there was a civil war between bourgeois nationalists both in Kurdistan and in Palestine etc. Of course there are differences as well, but as I said it seems more similar than the apartheid.

Achara

22nd July 2010, 12:22

Rape is simply sex without the other person's consent. Informed consent is violated when an individual infringes another's body with their simple consent but without their informed consent (e.g. fraud, negligence). If a doctor performs brain surgery on someone without their simple consent then they're criminally liable for assault or whatever appropriate criminal sentence. If a doctor performs brain surgery on someone with their simple consent but fails to adequately explain all the risks, complications and nature of the surgery, and subsequently damage occurs, then it can be argued the doctor lacked informed consent and could be liable for malpractice, There's a reason why abrogating simple consent can result in imprisonment but the abrogation of informed consent can typically only result in compensation; the former is far more serious. What it appears the Court has done in this case is to conflate informed consent with simple consent - that the man lied to the woman that he was Jewish and this amounts to rape.

h0m0revolutionary
Of course I don't agree with the man being charged, but to be fair to his 'victim' she had actively sought to determine that he was a Jew and he lied. The real victim is the man charged under a racist law and state.

And frankly I can hardly blame an Arab man lying about his background in a segregated country.

The consent was therefore given with a precondition.If you have been given to believe that someone has a particular quality and you consent to sex on those grounds, and then you subsequently discover they had knowingly lied to you, can it be said that you ever gave informed consent in the first place? Informed consent is irrelvant to having sex, and irrelevant to charges of rape. Parties cannot and should not require a truthful declaration from their sexual partners of whatever material facts before they can avoid being charged with rape.

counterblast
Any sexual act where one or more of the individuals involved cannot give full consent because of intoxication or mental incapability is rape; plain and simple.

There is no such thing as "half-rape". Either consent was present or it wasn't.This is contradictory on a number of levels. Firstly, you say that there is no such thing as 'half-rape' and that either consent is present or not. But then you use the phrase 'full consent' (as if consent comes in discrete packages?) in reference to intoxication. I'm not sure what you mean by 'full consent' but if someone is incapable of consenting because they are intoxicated then yes, it is rape. But merely because someone is intoxicated does not mean they lack the capacity to consent, they might make decisions which they later regret, but rape is the violation of simple consent - not something to be claimed because the individual didn't know x,y and z about their "rapist."

WantedMan
The person being interviewed is part of a crisis centre for anyone who feels they were sexually assaulted, so she claims that it's not up to her to judge, race doesn't enter into it, etc. I think its important to point out that these sorts of crisis centres often have a special interest in conflating what rape truly is for statistical and funding purposes.

22nd July 2010, 13:49

I have always been a bit surprised by the comparison between the South African apartheid state and Israel. While undoubtedly there are some similarities (the main one being the practice of intense disgusting national oppression), certainly the state of Israel has a much higher figure of those massacred compared to the apartheid regime. The Palestinian situation I always thought is more comparable to the situation of the Kurds in Turkey and until the 90ies Iraq (incidentally states both of which has committed more ethnic massacres than Israel did), with the high level of violence of the dominant states, the similarity of slurs and negationist policies against the targeted group, in the case of Turkey with the claims of democracy, with the identific concepts of intifada and serhildan, with the similarities between the behaviors of nationalist organizations supposedly defending the interests of the oppressed group, the fact that there was a civil war between bourgeois nationalists both in Kurdistan and in Palestine etc. Of course there are differences as well, but as I said it seems more similar than the apartheid.

For what it's worth, I intended the term more as shorthand for "a physically enforced system of racial segregation and discrimination", rather than intending to suggest that Israel is the same as apartheid South Africa. But regardless, very interesting points.

khad

22nd July 2010, 15:08

Uhh... I don't think "Arab" itself is a term of insult.
Would you have the same line if the article read "Christian woman has sex with black man?"

Of course Arab by itself is not a derogatory term, but in the context of this case it is undeniably racist. They are comparing a religion, Judaism, to an entire race of people, as if implying Arabs cannot be followers of Judaism and that Judaism constitutes an exclusive race unto itself.

mountainfire

22nd July 2010, 15:34

There seems to be some difference of opinion concerning what the Jewish woman actually knew or thought before she had sex - the Guardian article states that the man posed as a Jewish bachelor looking for a serious relationship, and that he therefore intentionally tricked the woman into having sex with him, possibly with the knowledge that she would otherwise have refused to do so, whereas a post on Lenin's Tomb says that all the Arab man did was not inform the Jewish woman that he was in fact Arab, which suggests that he passed for a Jew and simply did not go out of his way to inform the woman of his "real" ethnicity. Either way, this is shocking but ultimately unsurprising evidence of the nature of the Israeli state. If the man did seek to deceive the woman, then, on moral grounds, that's hardly the kind of behavior one can endorse, even if it is somewhat understandable given the prevailing system of racism in Israel - but it's certainly not rape or equivalent to not telling someone you have a life-threatening disease, because, whether you like it or not, deception is a central part of human interaction, including interaction with the intention of having sex, and by branding a case such as this as rape, you ultimately undermine the importance of rape and obscure what it is that makes actual cases of rape so devastating for the victim - namely the experience of being physically dominated and coerced in a way that violates the victim's emotional and physical being.

Incidentally, I can't post links yet, so the post on Lenin's Tomb is there:

leninology.blogspot DOT COM /2010/07/racist-patriarchy-in-israel.html

They are comparing a religion, Judaism, to an entire race of people, as if implying Arabs cannot be followers of Judaism and that Judaism constitutes an exclusive race unto itself

Actually, I think the point is that the lines of division and oppression in Israel flow along ethnic, not religious, lines. That's true not only of the division between Arabs and Jews but also the dynamics of oppression that are internal to the Jewish population, between those of European, Middle Eastern, and African descent. It's often hard to untangle the exact relationship between ethnicity and religion in the Israeli context, of course, but I don't see a problem with the word Arab here.

Glenn Beck

22nd July 2010, 16:08

Yeah, it's not like this sort of thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emmett_Till) was ever commonplace anywhere in the US.
It is interesting, though, how your "anti-Zionism" seems to only find expression through some sort of subtle US patriotism.

I don't understand how you get US patriotism from the simple observation that something like this most likely wouldn't happen in the U.S. right now and if it did there would be a major outcry. Not because it's the U.S. or because it's never happened here before, but simply because there have been all sorts of social struggles to stop it from happening again.

h0m0revolutionary

22nd July 2010, 17:44

The real victim is the man charged under a racist law and state.

And frankly I can hardly blame an Arab man lying about his background in a segregated country.

Absolutely, that's a given.

Informed consent is irrelvant to having sex, and irrelevant to charges of rape. Parties cannot and should not require a truthful declaration from their sexual partners of whatever material facts before they can avoid being charged with rape.

This is wrong, consent isn't just agreeing to sex. It's about appreciating what that sex will involve, what type of sex and knowing your own limitations and boundaries and those of your partner(s). Of course it isn't rape if you aren't aware of such things or don't bother to find out. But it's not "irrelevant" - and it's not hard to envisage a scenario that does turn into rape if such 'irrelevances' are not discussed.

Imagine for example if a trans individual was asked "Were you born the gender/sex that you identify as now?" (ignoring for a moment why one would ask such a thing). If the reply was anything other than the truth, that has big implications for any subsequent sexual activity that could follow.

Now nobody here would cry rape at such a thing, but to deny that lying to get somebody into bed can have very real and perhaps painful, material consequences for both parties isn't being honest.

Please tell me you did NOT just compare having sex with an arab to having sex with someone who has HIV/AIDs. I never knew having sex with an Arab is the equivalent of having sex with someone who can give you a life threatening disease with no cure!.

Umm, I didn't no.

What I said was:

This case isn't unique to Israel actually, there are very few cases around the world where you can legally retroactively withdraw consent.

Here in the UK for example five years ago a man was jailed for Grievous Bodily Harm after lying about his HIV status (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1420261/)

Clearly referring to the fact that consent can be retroactively withdrawn in a number of different cases, ranging from quite valid ones, to this racist and abusive case which has in all probability ruined a poor mans life. There is no hidden meaning in that, I meant, funnily enough, what I typed.

I mean you are comparing lying to someone about your ethnicity because you live in a racist shithole of a society to lying to someone about having HIV and then spreading it to them.

No, I'm really not.

Do you think getting fucked by an Arab is as bad as getting fucked by someone with HIV?

Go fuck yourself.

freepalestine

22nd July 2010, 18:16

Here is an Al Jazeera report where they interview some crazy person.
3O0aRE6fcaEunreal!

22nd July 2010, 22:01

I don't understand how you get US patriotism from...

It is clearer in the context of comments he's made in other threads.

Adi Shankara

22nd July 2010, 22:08

It is clearer in the context of comments he's made in other threads.

Really? why don't you show me rather than just making accusatory statements.

I love the American proletariat. I love the American land. I do NOT love the American government, the American state, or the American military. this thread I started should prove that I don't really believe in the American government's integrity: http://www.revleft.com/vb/7-million-people-t138742/index.html

why is that such a reactionary concept? quit your 3rd worldist bullshit while you're still at it.

-A-kRud-A-

22nd July 2010, 23:08

Go fuck yourself.

Your post did rub a lot of people the wrong way. I'm new here so I'm not familiar with your views so perhaps your post was meaning well? It would be bettwr to explain your aids statment.

22nd July 2010, 23:57

Really? why don't you show me rather than just making accusatory statements.

[...]

quit your 3rd worldist bullshit while you're still at it.

I am not a third-worldist; I think maybe you don't know what that term means. In any case, I am referring to comments (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1801908&postcount=8) like (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1801937&postcount=19) these (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1801899&postcount=4). There's not much more to say about it, though. I'm not really interested in debating it with you beyond this. I see this sort of sentiment as being rooted in American nationalism. Obviously you disagree. People can draw their own conclusions.

freepalestine

23rd July 2010, 00:17

I have always been a bit surprised by the comparison between the South African apartheid state and Israel. While undoubtedly there are some similarities..you equated palestine with the kurds.maybe its also similar to kashmir,saharwi's,darfur,burmamusims or other similar 3rd world
states.although isreal like rsa was based around racism from the offset.

Glenn Beck

23rd July 2010, 00:18

No, I'm really not.

Then why are you talking about it? Shut the fuck up.

This is not the place for you to wax philosophical about situations where lying to someone before having sex with them is a bad thing to do. You are engaging in an act of grave disrespect.

Leo

23rd July 2010, 00:30

First of all, homorevolutionary and glennblack should stop saying things to each other like "go fuck yourself" and "shut the fuck-up".

although isreal like rsa was based around racism from the offset.Well, Turkey was based on the Armenian Genocide from the offset (oops, hope I won't go to prison for saying this) - Iraq had always been based around the interests of the ruling class of the Arab Sunni minority etc. On a closer look, in the history of most nation states, we see this or that sort of national oppression.

Really? why don't you show me rather than just making accusatory statements (...) I love the American land. You are certainly not doing a good job for someone trying to deny that he is a nationalist.

The Fighting_Crusnik

23rd July 2010, 00:36

I can understand if something were to occur because a person lied about their STD status. However, with this case being about racial identity, I think it is beyond stupid that he is being charged when the woman had given him permission to have sex... if anything, this should serve as a reminder that when you screw random people you don't really know, you risk being screwed over like this.

freepalestine

23rd July 2010, 01:07

leo.i also support the kurdish struggle.stil, why do you think isreali state is not racist or has apartheid laws against palestinians?

Leo

23rd July 2010, 01:15

leo.i also support the kurdish struggleIncidentally I don't actually - I support the struggle of the Kurdish working class as a part of the world proletariat, I am against all sorts of nationalism including the Kurdish one, which has over and over proved to be an anti-working class force incapable of liquidating national oppression.

stil, why do you think isreali state is not racist Quite the contrary, I do think it is based on national oppression (it can be called racist, depending on the definition of "race"). I don't think the Israeli state is unique in this though.

or has apartheid laws against palestinians? Oh it certainly does, I never denied that. What I said was that there are more similarities between Israel and Turkey or Iraq compared to the old South African regime.

counterblast

23rd July 2010, 01:17

Do you think getting fucked by an Arab is as bad as getting fucked by someone with HIV? What the hell is wrong with you, man. Some of the AIDS-bashing rhetoric is getting to be borderline homophobic/ableist.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with some who has AIDS, so long as you're made aware of the fact (assuming they know), so that you can choose to take safety precautions, if you wish.

Neither having sex with an Arab nor having sex with someone who has AIDS is inherently "bad", nor are "being Arab" or "having AIDS" mutually exclusive categories (Arabs get AIDS too!); so I'm not sure why you're making a statement with those implications and I'm more unsure as to why such an AIDS-bashing post received so many "Thanks!".

Where is ACT UP when we need them!?

M-26-7

23rd July 2010, 02:56

Some of the AIDS-bashing rhetoric is getting to be borderline homophobic/ableist.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with some who has AIDS, so long as you're made aware of the fact (assuming they know), so that you can choose to take safety precautions, if you wish.

Do you need to take safety precautions when choosing to have sex with an Arab?

No, so I'm pretty sure it was still a terrible analogy which served to blunt the racist nature of this case.

(Also, while we're on the topic of homophobia, how is it not homophobic of you to identify AIDS with homosexuality? There are 2.5 million children with HIV worldwide - I'm pretty sure they did not get it from having homosexual sex. And if I'm not mistaken, heterosexual sex is responsible for far more HIV transmission in Africa than homosexual sex is).

Adi Shankara

23rd July 2010, 03:06

Some of the AIDS-bashing rhetoric is getting to be borderline homophobic/ableist.

Let's be non-PC and realistic though; having sex with an Arab can't kill you (unless he/she has aids or another venereal disease), but having sex with a person who is HIV/AIDS positive can. It's just that simple. One is a serious biological health risk, the other is a socially constructed one.

Also, isn't it kind've homophobic and patronizing to associate homosexuality and HIV/AIDS? Are you implying everyone who is homosexual is also HIV/AIDS positive?

M-26-7

23rd July 2010, 03:09

Heh, cross-post.

Adi Shankara

23rd July 2010, 03:44

Heh, cross-post.

ah, didn't read yours. I guess that makes mine a bit redundant :P

counterblast

23rd July 2010, 04:38

Do you need to take safety precautions when choosing to have sex with an Arab?

No, so I'm pretty sure it was still a terrible analogy which served to blunt the racist nature of this case.

(Also, while we're on the topic of homophobia, how is it not homophobic of you to identify AIDS with homosexuality? There are 2.5 million children with HIV worldwide - I'm pretty sure they did not get it from having homosexual sex. And if I'm not mistaken, heterosexual sex is responsible for far more HIV transmission in Africa than homosexual sex is).

Realistically, you need to take safety precautions when you have sex with anyone. Ignoring this fact only increases the invisibility of Arab people with STDs/STIs. We are not some mythical homogeneous group, who do not unknowingly carry diseases.

Numerically, yes, but proportionately, no.

One is a serious biological health risk, the other is a socially constructed one.

Also, isn't it kind've homophobic and patronizing to associate homosexuality and HIV/AIDS?The distinction between healthy/unhealthy that you're basing your argument on is a socially constructed distinction, too. Just because someone believes they are healthy, does not mean they actually are.

Uh, no. The queer community (along with the Black community) in America have historically been disproportionately affected by AIDS, neither of which are a big secret or are really controversial assertions. During the 80s and early 90s, the bulk of queer activism in the US was around the AIDS epidemic and the lack of government research/assistance for those suffering with it.

Are you implying everyone who is homosexual is also HIV/AIDS positive?

Absolutely not, such a claim would be totally unfounded. I do however, question why this would be an insult if I were asserting this. Why is having AIDS being used as a way to trivialize or subhumanize people? Would you find it insulting if I insisted that all of the Black community were in wheelchairs?

counterblast

23rd July 2010, 04:47

Do you need to take safety precautions when choosing to have sex with an Arab?

No, so I'm pretty sure it was still a terrible analogy which served to blunt the racist nature of this case.

(Also, while we're on the topic of homophobia, how is it not homophobic of you to identify AIDS with homosexuality? There are 2.5 million children with HIV worldwide - I'm pretty sure they did not get it from having homosexual sex. And if I'm not mistaken, heterosexual sex is responsible for far more HIV transmission in Africa than homosexual sex is).

Realistically, you need to take safety precautions when you have sex with anyone. Ignoring this fact only increases the invisibility of Arab people with STDs/STIs. We are not some mythical homogeneous group, who do not unknowingly carry diseases.

Numerically, yes, but proportionately, no.

One is a serious biological health risk, the other is a socially constructed one.

Also, isn't it kind've homophobic and patronizing to associate homosexuality and HIV/AIDS?

The distinction between healthy/unhealthy that you're basing your argument on is a socially constructed distinction, too. Just because someone believes they are healthy, does not mean they actually are.

Uh, no. The queer community (along with the Black community) in America have historically been disproportionately affected by AIDS, neither of which are a big secret or are really controversial assertions. During the 80s and early 90s, the bulk of queer activism in the US was around the AIDS epidemic and the lack of government research/assistance for those suffering with it.

Devrim

23rd July 2010, 06:31

Of course Arab by itself is not a derogatory term, but in the context of this case it is undeniably racist. They are comparing a religion, Judaism, to an entire race of people, as if implying Arabs cannot be followers of Judaism and that Judaism constitutes an exclusive race unto itself.

That is basically because most people see Jewishness as more a racial category as a religious one.

Devrim

Andropov

23rd July 2010, 12:56

Well, Turkey was based on the Armenian Genocide from the offset (oops, hope I won't go to prison for saying this) - Iraq had always been based around the interests of the ruling class of the Arab Sunni minority etc. On a closer look, in the history of most nation states, we see this or that sort of national oppression.
I dont know enough about the Kurdish and Armenian struggle with the Turks nor the oppression within Iraq.
But what sets Israel apart from these incidents of oppression, injustice and in many cases genocide that I know of is the fact that the Israeli state is essentially a Settler State comprising a majority European population and settled there for Western Imperialisms interests of course legitimising itself with a thin veneer of credibility of "A home for the Jews because the Torah says so" and all the nonsense.
One wonders how a European Settler population could essentially land grab a whole country from the Palestinian natives and it was through systemtic ethnic cleansing sponsored by Western Imperialism and then importing European settlers who will receive massive financial insentives for par-taking and actively engageing with ethnic cleansing.
I dont know as much as you in relation to the Kurdish or Armenian context but from my limited knowledge on these contexts the Israel scenario is remarkably different.

meow

23rd July 2010, 13:34

Do you need to take safety precautions when choosing to have sex with an Arab?
as counterblast says yes. well assuming you dont know sexual history of partner. of course for two women they are much less likely to get deciese from the other. but for two men it is still needed. for one man one women yes. especially if you dont want to get pregnant (and who would?).

That is basically because most people see Jewishness as more a racial category as a religious one.
yes. i was going to say same thing. many jews are not religious but still say "i am jew". they may not even be culturally jewish. but still they say they are jew.

M-26-7

23rd July 2010, 15:36

It should have been obvious, to anyone following the conversation, that I was asking whether you have to take extra precautions when having sex with an Arab because he's an Arab--the way you do when you know that someone is HIV positive, that is if you choose to have sex with an HIV positive person at all (no one would think you a bigot if you chose not to). Pointing out that you should always take some safety precautions is basically a trite point not really worth making in this context.

Seriously, stop defending the Arab-AIDS analogy now.

meow

23rd July 2010, 15:42

i did not intend to defend the analagy. your point that it was extra precaution was not clear. after all it is actually the same precaution (barrier such as condom) that is needed. the arab may have hiv. the hiv+ person may be arab.

the analagy is false one of course. but your comment was misleading?

Glenn Beck

23rd July 2010, 17:46

Counterblast, you are a pedantic imbecile.

M-26-7

23rd July 2010, 19:31

Counterblast, you are a pedantic imbecile.

I don't think s/he is an imbecile, I think her point about HIV-positive persons is valid, and would have been fine in another context.

But I do think that for reasons unknown she chose to temporarily derail this thread about a racist court decision in Israel to deliver her schpiel about how it is possible to have sex with HIV-positive persons if you take precautions and know the risks. Much in the same way that h0m0revolutionary earlier chose to derail the thread to make his point about how consent to sex must be informed consent if it is to be consent at all. I don't think either of their posts raised people's ire because of the points they were making per se, so much as because of the diminishing effect it had to make those (mostly unrelated) points in this thread. Also the fact that they were just plain, old derails.

counterblast

23rd July 2010, 21:46

Counterblast, you are a pedantic imbecile.

And you're an ableist moron.

Much in the same way that h0m0revolutionary earlier chose to derail the thread to make his point about how consent to sex must be informed consent if it is to be consent at all. No. Calling someone out for ableism/AIDS-bashing does not derail or detract from the conversation surrounding racism. (And explain to me how consent discussions detract from a case involving alleged rape.)

Sasha

23rd July 2010, 22:47

A point which is rarely mentioned in the coverage of the "rape by deception" case—either by Israeli or foreign media—is that the case started out as a regular rape case. The woman claimed she was forcibly raped by Kashour. Once on the stand, however, the defense demolished her story and she admitted she lied and that they had consensual sex. She admitted that after learning Kashour lied to her, she felt humiliated and went to the police. It was at that point the prosecution came up with the plea bargain. A normal court would have just acquitted Kashour, but this court decided to convict.

1. If the woman had told the true story to the police in the first place, there would have been no trial, not to mention any conviction.
2. Kashour has no earlier convictions. In another "rape by deception"" case, which involved a lesbian masquerading as a man in order to have sex with women, she received only six months of suspended sentence. Kashour got 18 months of incarceration.
3. One of the three judges is Moshe Drori, who was embroiled in a scandal last year, when he refused to convict a very well connected yeshiva boy who admitted - and was filmed - running over a security guard with his vehicle. The security guard was an Ethiopian woman. Drori, a Jewish Orthodox, forced the guard to accept the apology of the yeshiva boy, and then invoked a judgment by 12th century scholar Maimonides (I shit you not), which says once an apology is accepted by the victim, the case is closed. And he closed the case. He is apparently a Maimonidas affectionado. The case was overturned in the Supreme Court, and this schtick cost Drori his chance at becoming a Supreme Court justice. Let's say that a non-Jew masquerading as a Jew won't stand much of a chance in the court of Judge Drori.

source: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/rape-by-deception-ctd.html#more

Hiratsuka

23rd July 2010, 23:09

And you're an ableist moron.

No. Calling someone out for ableism/AIDS-bashing does not derail or detract from the conversation surrounding racism. (And explain to me how consent discussions detract from a case involving alleged rape.)

Saying that getting fucked unknowingly by someone with AIDs is horrible is neither homophobic nor AIDs victim bashing... It's the truth.

Only in rare circumstances like when a person knowingly lies about having an STD or being on birth control should there be legal recourse for lying.

Leo

23rd July 2010, 23:16

Counterblast, you are a pedantic imbecile.

OK, this is the second time you are flaming, it is not allowed and next you are gonna get an infraction.

And you're an ableist moron.

Please don't respond to flaming with flaming.

I dont know enough about the Kurdish and Armenian struggle with the Turks nor the oppression within Iraq.
But what sets Israel apart from these incidents of oppression, injustice and in many cases genocide that I know of is the fact that the Israeli state is essentially a Settler State comprising a majority European population and settled there for Western Imperialisms interests of course legitimising itself with a thin veneer of credibility of "A home for the Jews because the Torah says so" and all the nonsense.
One wonders how a European Settler population could essentially land grab a whole country from the Palestinian natives and it was through systemtic ethnic cleansing sponsored by Western Imperialism and then importing European settlers who will receive massive financial insentives for par-taking and actively engageing with ethnic cleansing.
I dont know as much as you in relation to the Kurdish or Armenian context but from my limited knowledge on these contexts the Israel scenario is remarkably different. There is of course a unique case behind the foundation of Israel. Then again, there are unique cases behind foundations of all national states - and in effect the same bloody practices anyway. In any case, I am not saying the Kurdish and the Palestinian cases are identical anyway.

Sasha

23rd July 2010, 23:22

what is in my vieuw intresting in this case that it breaks the racism against arab "israeli's" in the open. Everbody knows about the palestinians and such, and sadly the "but they are freedomhating terrorists" israeli defence seems to sway enough people to keep the international anger under control. But its shit like this, racism/apartheid inside israel that will eventualy break the camels back, at least so that an reformist "sollution" like in south africa is forced

edit: woops my bad, i mistakenly assumed thas this guy was legaly an arab-israeli but he is from occupied jeruzalem, not that it matters from an revleftish perspective.
interview with the man in question: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/22/israeli-palestinian-man-to-appeal-rape-by-deception-conviction/?iref=allsearch
he is going to appeal and is already for 2 years under house arrest.

freepalestine

24th July 2010, 01:55

There is of course a unique case behind the foundation of Israel. Then again, there are unique cases behind foundations of [I]all [I]national states - and in effect the same bloody practices anyway. In any case, I am not saying the Kurdish and the Palestinian cases are identical anyway.so say why the palestine case is different to apartheid rsa.have you been to palestine?what makes you think it's any different to rsa?

Adi Shankara

24th July 2010, 02:13

edit: woops my bad, i mistakenly assumed thas this guy was legaly an arab-israeli but he is from occupied jeruzalem, not that it matters from an revleftish perspective.
interview with the man in question: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/22/israeli-palestinian-man-to-appeal-rape-by-deception-conviction/?iref=allsearch
he is going to appeal and is already for 2 years under house arrest.

That just makes it even more like South Africa, considering the "rights" of africans living in Bantustans were even less than those who were actually legally living in South Africa. The theory was, send blacks to Bantustans and they'd have more freedom from "being with their own kind"; but that was kind've hard considering that the South African republic handpicked the dictators of those bantustans (the only thing Israel doesn't have in common with South Africa). This created the perception even further in South Africa that, despite being friendly to South African interests, the Bantustan inhabitants were even less than blacks in South Africa proper.

so basically, just like the blacks of the Bantustan were a "lower class" of black to South Africans, the Arabs of the occupied territories are just a "Lower class" of Arab to Israelis.

freepalestine

24th July 2010, 02:21

... We[arabs?] are not some mythical homogeneous group, who do not unknowingly carry diseases.can you explain

Sendo

24th July 2010, 03:19

Psycho, holy shit! That's the script of To Kill a Mockingbird. A black man accused of rape has his defense demolish the charges yet he gets the conviction because a prejudiced jury wants to punish for something else, a transgression against their race bigotry. A black man admits to feeling sorry for a white woman and condemns himself. An Arab is revealed to have been Arab and gets condemned.

Adi Shankara

24th July 2010, 06:38

I am not a third-worldist; I think maybe you don't know what that term means. In any case, I am referring to comments (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1801908&postcount=8) like (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1801937&postcount=19) these (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1801899&postcount=4). There's not much more to say about it, though. I'm not really interested in debating it with you beyond this. I see this sort of sentiment as being rooted in American nationalism. Obviously you disagree. People can draw their own conclusions.

and how could ANY of those be misinterpreted as "Patriotic"? you don't explain yourself. I'm guessing you're not wanting to debate beyond this because you realize you've got nothing, so you are just going to drop and run.

frankly, you can't tell me how any of what I said is nationalist. I live in America. is that nationalist? I said my country is the United States of America, not Israel. is that nationalist? I said that the same capitalists who control Israel control the USA. is that nationalist?

and hence why I called you a 3rd worldist--you automatically have prejudice against anyone who is American (or at least the way you hounded on me, it seems that way).

counterblast

24th July 2010, 09:09

can you explain

There are Arab people with AIDS, too. So comparing AIDS victims with Arab people as though no intersectionality exists or as though these were two mutually exclusive categories is misleading, and can only homogenize Arab people and AIDS victims.

Leo

24th July 2010, 10:10

so say why the palestine case is different to apartheid rsa.have you been to palestine?what makes you think it's any different to rsa?

Simply examining the history of the situation in Israel and the RSA, it is easy to see that Israel has been by far the state which committed more massacres, the state which had a policy of national oppression mainly based on violence. The RSA, as disgusting as it was, didn't nearly commit as many massacres as Israel did.

All of this I explained in my first post anyway.

24th July 2010, 10:45

I'm guessing you're not wanting to debate beyond this because you realize you've got nothing, so you are just going to drop and run.No, I didn't want to debate beyond it because I didn't want to derail the thread with a long exchange that is of no relevance to the topic, lest it be perceived as some sort of attempt to detract from Zionist racism. Granted, I've made my unabashed hatred of Zionism very clear in my posts on this board, so it is hopefully a groundless concern.

I live in America. is that nationalist?No. However, you also said in your post in this thread (I saw it before you edited it): "I love the American people. I love the American land". This is the language of American patriotism.

I said my country is the United States of America, not Israel. is that nationalist?Yes, in the context that you said it, it certainly is. It wasn't merely an observation about your geographic location or national residence as you are attempting to present it here. The sentiment was more along the lines of "My country is the United States of America, not the free association of Israel; how dare the US government subordinate the freewill of American capitalists to the interests of Israel! [insert references to FREEDOM!!1 DEMOCRACY!!1 and other similarly irritating quasi-religious bourgeois ideals that liberals love to squeal about] Down with Israel, BECAUSE MY COUNTRY IS AMERICA!!1" which is absolutely a nationalist sentiment and which was absolutely the sentiment behind your comments.
American "anti-Zionists" whose "anti-Zionism" is not fundamentally predicated on resolute and irreconcilable opposition to "their own" ruling class and its nationalism are no less reactionary than pro-Zionists. I was born in the US and it is where I've lived for the twenty two years I've been alive. But it is not "my country". It is the country of the national bourgeoisie.

and hence why I called you a 3rd worldist--you automatically have prejudice against anyone who is Americanlol

a) I am not a third-worldist
b) You don't understand what that term actually means
c) as I said, I've lived in America my whole life, so...

Revy

24th July 2010, 10:58

No, I didn't want to debate beyond it because I didn't want to derail the thread with a long exchange that is of no relevance to the topic, lest it be perceived as some sort of attempt to detract from Zionist racism. Granted, I've made my unabashed hatred of Zionism very clear in my posts on this board, so it is hopefully a groundless concern.
No. However, you also said in your post in this thread (I saw it before you edited it): "I love the American people. I love the American land". This is the language of American patriotism.
Yes, in the context that you said it, it certainly is. It wasn't merely an observation about your geographic location or national residence as you are attempting to present it here. The sentiment was more along the lines of "My country is the United States of America, not the free association of Israel; how dare the US government subordinate the freewill of American capitalists to the interests of Israel! [insert references to FREEDOM!!1 DEMOCRACY!!1 and other similarly irritating quasi-religious bourgeois ideals that liberals love to squeal about] Down with Israel, BECAUSE MY COUNTRY IS AMERICA!!1" which is absolutely a nationalist sentiment and which was absolutely the sentiment behind your comments.
American "anti-Zionists" whose "anti-Zionism" is not fundamentally predicated on resolute and irreconcilable opposition to "their own" ruling class and its nationalism are no less reactionary than pro-Zionists. I was born in the US and it is where I've lived for the twenty two years I've been alive. But it is not "my country". It is the country of the national bourgeoisie.

lol

a) I am not a third-worldist
b) You don't understand what that term actually means
c) as I said, I've lived in America my whole life, so...

This was my reason for criticizing the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" because I felt they framed their argument in the same nationalist way (although I didn't actually read the book, it's easy to see its main arguments are that "American interests" are hurt by Israel lobbying and supposedly influencing US foreign policy, as if the US wouldn't otherwise be just as imperialist, which is absolute bullshit)

Andropov

24th July 2010, 13:29

There is of course a unique case behind the foundation of Israel. Then again, there are unique cases behind foundations of all national states - and in effect the same bloody practices anyway. In any case, I am not saying the Kurdish and the Palestinian cases are identical anyway.
Yes of course there are different cases behind the formation of every nation state.
But the real debate is how markedly different is Israel from these other contexts? Because as with everything there are degrees of difference.
In my own analysis it is indeed very very different, remarkably so.
For the reasons I stated in my previous post.

Devrim

24th July 2010, 16:30

so say why the palestine case is different to apartheid rsa.have you been to palestine?what makes you think it's any different to rsa?

I have been to Palestine. I also went to South Africa under apartheid. I have been to Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. I am an Arab national (though not ethnic Arab), and an Arabic speaker.

There are lots of things that make me think that Palestine is different from South Africa, and my point here is that many of them don't necessitate my having been to either Palestine or South Africa to realise it.

I don't at all like this line of argument. Certainly the white minority in SA was a minority, yet even today Jews are a majority between the sea and the Jordan.

Now,I am not saying that that is something that makes an intrinsic difference in character, but it is a fact that people can observe without ever having been to either country.

When we compare what goes on in Turkish Kurdistan to what goes on in Palestine, I think there is at least a point. Certainly (outside of the wars) Turkey has murdered more Kurds than Israel has murdered Palestinians. Certainly cultural oppression and cultural assimilation is more intense in Turkey than Palestine.

But what sets Israel apart from these incidents of oppression, injustice and in many cases genocide that I know of is the fact that the Israeli state is essentially a Settler State comprising a majority European population and settled there for Western Imperialisms interests of course legitimising itself with a thin veneer of credibility of "A home for the Jews because the Torah says so" and all the nonsense.
One wonders how a European Settler population could essentially land grab a whole country from the Palestinian natives and it was through systemtic ethnic cleansing sponsored by Western Imperialism and then importing European settlers who will receive massive financial insentives for par-taking and actively engageing with ethnic cleansing.

I am sure that you don't mean to say this, but is ethnic cleansing less bad, when it is committed by Turks, and not by 'a Settler State'?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, myself and leo are at least arguing against our own state (i.e. the state we live in. He is a Kurd I am not), which surely is the role of communists everywhere.

Devrim

Glenn Beck

24th July 2010, 19:01

There are Arab people with AIDS, too. So comparing AIDS victims with Arab people as though no intersectionality exists or as though these were two mutually exclusive categories is misleading, and can only homogenize Arab people and AIDS victims.

I never did any of that, which you would readily recognize if you had some contact with reality. Denying that there are Arabs with AIDS, that's just ridiculous.

At issue here was a deeply offensive comparison made between an individual in a segregated society deceiving a sexual partner about his ethnicity and an individual deceiving a sexual partner about having a life-threatening and incurable disease.

The discussion of HIV infection status in this thread has always been a red herring, and an offensive and inexcusable derail of a serious discussion.

Sam_b

24th July 2010, 19:10

I don't want to derail this topic, but just wanted to put a point of clarity across. I don't think that the HIV example is perhaps a very good one, but there have been comments such as:

Because being Arab is just like having AIDS.which are not in fact correct, and are actually hurtful to the cause at hand. HIV is not AIDS. Not that I am defending someone lying about their HIV status in the slightest, but it is very possible to have a long and healthy life while being HIV positive. AIDS is a syndrome which is caused by HIV in the symtomatic stage. It is not HIV, and it is unhelpful to lump the two together apart from highlighting the misconceptions around it.

I don't think, however, it is completely relevant to the discussion at hand here.

freepalestine

25th July 2010, 05:50

I am an Arab national (though not ethnic Arab), and an Arabic speaker. There are lots of things that make me think that Palestine is different from South Africa, and my point here is that many of them don't necessitate my having been to either Palestine or South Africa to realise it. I don't at all like this line of argument.why is palestine different to rsa?and what is an 'ethnic arab'?explain.

Devrim

25th July 2010, 06:01

why is palestine different to rsa?

I think Leo started to go into it before. I am not really interested in getting into the discussion. My point was that you don't have to have been to either Palestine or South Africa to take part in the discussion.

and what is an 'ethnic arab'?explain.

I'm a citizen of an Arab state (as well as a European one). I am not an Arab.

Devrim

Adi Shankara

25th July 2010, 11:31

No. However, you also said in your post in this thread (I saw it before you edited it): "I love the American people. I love the American land". This is the language of American patriotism.

...yet, I noticed for the sake of your argument, you left out the very next line where I said "and I hate the American government and political system". way to twist my words there, buddy!

a) I am not a third-worldist
b) You don't understand what that term actually means
c) as I said, I've lived in America my whole life, so...[/QUOTE]

I've said you're a third worldist because I never met a single one who didn't hate Americans or Europeans. they think that all righteous revolution comes out of the third world. I'm sick of the bashing on Americans as if we're born capitalists, or even rich.

"My country is the United States of America, not the free association of Israel; how dare the US government subordinate the freewill of American capitalists to the interests of Israel! [insert references to FREEDOM!!1 DEMOCRACY!!1 and other similarly irritating quasi-religious bourgeois ideals that liberals love to squeal about] Down with Israel, BECAUSE MY COUNTRY IS AMERICA!!

No, the sentiment more was "I'm sick of my government supporting oppressive states and defending them through bad and good, because it makes us almost like we're a puppet of said nation. we did it for West Germany, we did it for Israel, and we did it for Egypt".

seriously, you just make a rant and the UGOI all thumb up your post. you didn't even look at what I wrote nor the context. you made up your own context in an attempt to put me down.

sorry I'm not like you (of which your sentiment must be "OMG THOSE EVIL AMERICANS THEY ALL ARE BUSH VOTERS AND ALL THINK OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST SAVIOR, WHY ARE AMERICANS SO FAT ETC")

and I don't care if you were born here. that doesn't mean you don't hate Americans.

synthesis

25th July 2010, 11:42

synthesis

25th July 2010, 12:03

Some of the AIDS-bashing rhetoric is getting to be borderline homophobic/ableist.
The queer community (along with the Black community) in America have historically been disproportionately affected by AIDS, neither of which are a big secret or are really controversial assertions. During the 80s and early 90s, the bulk of queer activism in the US was around the AIDS epidemic and the lack of government research/assistance for those suffering with it.

So would it also be borderline racist? If not, why?

Moreover... I don't see how the posts in this thread could be construed as "AIDS-bashing," period. It was brought up because of the common element of deception, but the two criminal cases are obviously completely different, since the woman consented to the sex, while the people who were infected did not consent to be infected.

synthesis

25th July 2010, 12:17

Simply examining the history of the situation in Israel and the RSA, it is easy to see that Israel has been by far the state which committed more massacres, the state which had a policy of national oppression mainly based on violence. The RSA, as disgusting as it was, didn't nearly commit as many massacres as Israel did.

All of this I explained in my first post anyway.

True. As you said, as bad as the RSA was, it was an system of economic subjugation - it needed Africans to remain a numerical majority so as to have a labor force to exploit.

In contrast, the Israeli government and ruling body is fundamentally irredentist, so they would much prefer that all the Palestinian Arabs simply "go away" by any means available.

That said, the number of parallels is nearly overwhelming. Israel is more or less at the same stage as South Africa around the 70's and 80's, when foreign opposition to their barbaric policies began to mount and the ruling body subsequently entered into a "siege mentality" while concomitantly silencing internal opposition at all costs.

Pawn Power

25th July 2010, 16:19

Just chiming in to support what counterblast has wrote, nothing much to ad, and to say that some people have been pretty narrow minded in their responses.

Also this, an interview with Saber Kushour: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/saber-kushour-rape-deception-charge

Andropov

25th July 2010, 18:28

I am sure that you don't mean to say this, but is ethnic cleansing less bad, when it is committed by Turks, and not by 'a Settler State'?
No of course not but surely the scale of ethnic cleansing that Turks commit against Kurds is not consistant with the scale of ethnic cleansing committed by Israel against Palestinians?

Leo

25th July 2010, 18:42

No of course not but surely the scale of ethnic cleansing that Turks commit against Kurds is not consistant with the scale of ethnic cleansing committed by Israel against Palestinians? Possibly its even more, if anything.

Andropov

25th July 2010, 18:46

Possibly its even more, if anything.
Really?
And what form this this take, is it genocidal or is it a concerted effort to systematically remove Kurds from Turkey through forced evictions and the like?

Leo

25th July 2010, 19:44

And what form this this take, is it genocidal or is it a concerted effort to systematically remove Kurds from Turkey through forced evictions and the like?

It has a long history, starting from the 20ies. It took many forms, including genocidal acts and forced evictions along other things. You can try to research it if you wish.

Adi Shankara

25th July 2010, 20:40

Really?
And what form this this take, is it genocidal or is it a concerted effort to systematically remove Kurds from Turkey through forced evictions and the like?

Either way, it's not as bad as what they did to the Armenians.

black magick hustla

25th July 2010, 22:44

man if there was such thing as rape by deception every college aged kid spitting game will go to prison. people lie to get laid all the time

Devrim

26th July 2010, 09:56

True. As you said, as bad as the RSA was, it was an system of economic subjugation - it needed Africans to remain a numerical majority so as to have a labor force to exploit.

In contrast, the Israeli government and ruling body is fundamentally irredentist, so they would much prefer that all the Palestinian Arabs simply "go away" by any means available.

That said, the number of parallels is nearly overwhelming. Israel is more or less at the same stage as South Africa around the 70's and 80's, when foreign opposition to their barbaric policies began to mount and the ruling body subsequently entered into a "siege mentality" while concomitantly silencing internal opposition at all costs.

I can't see many parrelels at all. The only one that you seem to be making here is in foriegn attitudes towards the two states and even that is based on more wishful thinking that it will go in a similar way with Israel than anything else.

Devrim