israel sentences arab to 18months for consentual sex

TriumphantAngel

cincybearcat wrote:

You know...after everything else I read here, I have to ask...how the hell is my comment the one that you find distasteful?

because you are insinuating that people who defend Palestinians basic human rights and are critical of the Israeli government with good reason for the most part, are unable to look at anything objectively.

yosi

polaris_x wrote:

soo ... where is this article in haaretz?

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-e ... n-1.314319

redrock

yosi wrote:

....because the prosecution was looking for a lesser charge for a plea bargain to which the defendant might agree.

And why would the prosecution try to find a lesser charge for the prosecuted if they were so dead cert of their client? If 'forcible rape' was that cut and dry, prosecutors would have gone for that, sparing their client or not.

yosi

That's based entirely on your own assumptions. And there is a difference between what a prosecutor is certain of and what he can prove in court. They could have been certain that this was a violent rape, but if they felt that their case rested on the testimony of the victim, and that the victim wouldn't be able to hold it together on the stand, then it's understandable that they would try to get whatever they could, even if it wasn't everything they wanted.

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

In my opinion that was an extraordinary case. I know you disagree.

i disagree that you were able to get away with threatening violence and telling me i'll be gagging on my teeth.

damn right i do.

polaris_x

yosi wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

soo ... where is this article in haaretz?

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-e ... n-1.314319

ok ... i read the entire thing and nothing changes for me ...

for one: if you are being assaulted on a stairwell, why would you not ask for help from the lady that came? ... why would you accompany a man up the elevator? ... secondly, if a man violently rapes you - why on earth would he call you back 2 days later to meet again?

there are too many incosistencies to say one way or another in this case

yosi

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion.

yosi

T, we've been over this. Give it a rest. Apologies have been given all around. Let it go.

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

T, we've been over this. Give it a rest. Apologies have been given all around. Let it go.

bullshit. i don't give a shit what you sorted out with someone else. i never received an apology. i received fuck all. just an antisemite tag.

cincybearcat

redrock wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Everyone. I wonder what this thread would look like if it was flipped.

What do you mean by 'if it was flipped'?

If it were as Polaris was wondering...if the woman was Palestinian and the accused was Israeli.

cincybearcat

TriumphantAngel wrote:

yosi wrote:

T, we've been over this. Give it a rest. Apologies have been given all around. Let it go.

bullshit. i don't give a shit what you sorted out with someone else. i never received an apology. i received fuck all. just an antisemite tag.

Perhaps you should pm about this?

yosi

If it was flipped, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there would be massive outrage directed towards the Israeli rapist, who most everyone would be absolutely sure was guilty.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

If it was flipped, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there would be massive outrage directed towards the Israeli rapist, who most everyone would be absolutely sure was guilty.

if the thing was flipped and we had the same information that we have now i do not think that we would be thinking any differently..

yosi

Maybe you wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure Byrnzie would, as would Triumphant, and possibly a few others. You can't honestly tell me there aren't people on this board who troll the internet searching out every article they can find that paints Israel in a negative light so they can post it here. These people, I'm not afraid to say, are not objective on this issue (and yeah, nobody is ever totally objective, but I think the above named are so rigid in their thinking about Israel at this point, that you can pretty much predict with absolute certainty which way they will break in any Israel-Palestine discussion, regardless of the specific topic).

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

Maybe you wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure Byrnzie would, as would Triumphant, and possibly a few others. You can't honestly tell me there aren't people on this board who troll the internet searching out every article they can find that paints Israel in a negative light so they can post it here. These people, I'm not afraid to say, are not objective on this issue (and yeah, nobody is ever totally objective, but I think the above named are so rigid in their thinking about Israel at this point, that you can pretty much predict with absolute certainty which way they will break in any Israel-Palestine discussion, regardless of the specific topic).

they do not search random sites looking for info. they, like me, search sites like the guardian and post what we find. there is nothing wrong with criticizing the israeli government or it's policies. and as far as i can tell i do not see people attacking individual israelis on here unless they are the settlers breaking international law, which deserve criticism. triumphantangel and byrnzie are good people and passionate about their beliefs, just as you are passionate about yours. i think most of us on here can separate religion and ethnicity from facts in the case...

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

Maybe you wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure Byrnzie would, as would Triumphant, and possibly a few others. You can't honestly tell me there aren't people on this board who troll the internet searching out every article they can find that paints Israel in a negative light so they can post it here. These people, I'm not afraid to say, are not objective on this issue (and yeah, nobody is ever totally objective, but I think the above named are so rigid in their thinking about Israel at this point, that you can pretty much predict with absolute certainty which way they will break in any Israel-Palestine discussion, regardless of the specific topic).

let's clear something up shall we.

i defend Palestinian basic human rights and am critical of Israel's government. very. with good reason.

i would like nothing more than a just peace for the the people of Israel and Palestine. my motivation has always been and will always be for the wellbeing and want of a better life for the 500,000 Palestinian children who lead the shittiest life and the other innocent Palestinians and Israelis who are caught up in this conflict.

but nice try at trying to bait me.

yosi

I don't think it would have to do with religion and ethnicity. It would have to do with nationality. If you haven't noticed there are constantly threads and posts about the actions of individual Israelis, which are then used to indict Israel as a whole. As for the objectiveness of some of the people here, again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I maintain that there are those here who are really quite knee-jerk when it comes to Israel, i.e. Israel, to their mind, is always the bad guy, and there are never any shades of grey. The very fact that Cincy would raise the question as to what the reaction would be were the identities of those involved in the case flipped, I think, testifies to the fact that I am not the only one here who has this perception.

Triumphant, I am not questioning your motivations. I'm sure you have the best intentions. I just think, based on our interaction here, that you have arrived at a point, I'm sure unintentionally and without being aware of it, where you no longer really approach topics related to Israel with an open mind. But again, that's just my read.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I'm not ignoring anything. I still don't believe that judges do that, to the degree of which you claim. Just because the eventual plea deal is rape by deception, if in fact the true crime were to be violent rape, I highly doubt the judge would go so far as to say that he acknowledges that it was concensual sex and that she would have had no issue if he was in fact a jew.

It's preposterous.

And no, I'm not basing my opinion on just that, there are also several inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story.

yosi wrote:

Paul, the judge's comments, as I understand them, were made in the context of handing down a sentence for the charge to which the defendant pled guilty. His comments therefore addressed the facts of the case as established in the plea. In this case the plea was rape by deception, so the judge was simply addressing the "deception" described in the plea. To point to the judge's comments after the fact as proof of what actually happened ignores the entire chronology of events, i.e. that the original charge was forcible rape, and that the only reason "deception" became an issue was because the prosecution was looking for a lesser charge for a plea bargain to which the defendant might agree.

yosi

Ok, again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thinking hanging your argument on the judge's comments is a thin argument.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

Ok, again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thinking hanging your argument on the judge's comments is a thin argument.

what is the job of the judge? to hear the facts and make a decision, not to use his prejudices to influence the verdict or the severity of the sentence...