Skip to main content

and other accusations, because an Arab man was convicted of "rape by deception" for claiming to be Jewish and thereby persuading an Israeli woman to have sex with him?

It was all the rage here in July, with people piling on with accusations like Israel is RacistIsrael is Racist, a diary, Arab man claims to be Jewish to get laid. Convicted of rape, another diary, and Arab-Israeli Found Guilty of 'Rape by Deception' after Pretending to be Jewish, a third diary. The one-diary-per-subject rule doesn't really apply when it involves I/P.

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the penitentiary.

Many were outraged that an Arab man would be sentenced to prison for rape by deception. Yes, even staunch feminists who, in any other arena, might defend a woman's right not just to say "no," but to only say "yes" when fully informed, were upset.

The victim was accused:

Were it not for the bigoted character of the "victim" there would be no case at all. It was consensual sex between adults.

The woman initially accused Mr Kashur under oath of a brutal rape against her consent, a charge that carries a heavy jail sentence. But when Mr Kashur's lawyer mounted his own investigation and disproved her claims, the Jerusalem District Court agreed to a plea bargain.

So the woman first lied about being raped. She should be the one behind bars for making a false accusation.

BTW: what's the penalty/sentence for being a really dumb meet-and-screw whore ?

So much for the myth that all Jewish women are smarties.

Kinky, yes; a smartie, maybe.

The woman IS to blame. Not for having sex with the guy, but for putting the guy in jail merely because she's prejudiced against Arabs.

What this woman did is extremely reprehensible; bigoted and almost pathologically vindictive.

Obviously it is racist. Clearly the woman who filed the charges is a racist. But the shocking thing is that the Judge would then agree with her.

Reminds me of the stories of white Americans lynching black Americans for "looking at a white woman the wrong way". Obviously not the same result, but the same racist thinking behind it.

Israel was accused:

Israel is racist and evidently before that as well.

Israelis consider miscegenatation to be treason.  They are obsessed with maintaining racial purity.

Since laws against miscegenation are considered racist and anachronistic, Israel calls it rape.

the entire proceeding was nothing more than a racist lynching.

Transcripts have now been released. Is anybody interested in what actually happened?

The woman's testimony, which throws a completely different light on the case, had not been released until now, since she testified during an in camera court session, whose contents had been under gag order. The identity of the complainant, B., remains under gag order.

...

B.'s life story is crucial to understanding the affair. B. is in her late 20s, and comes from a city in central Israel. Her father began sexually abusing her when she was 6, and later sent her to work as a prostitute. Much of her youth was spent in boarding schools. As a teenager, she worked as a prostitute and started abusing drugs, and at one point she lived on the street. None of this ended her father's abuse. Just a month before her encounter with Kashur, her father sexually assaulted her again, and she fled to a shelter for young women at risk.

As soon as they entered the building, B. claims, Kashur started to force himself upon her. ...

B. says Kashur showed no restraint. "He lifted up my shirt and bra and he kissed my body," she says. At this point, an unknown blonde woman entered the stairwell, and Kashur stopped, B. says. He decided to move from the stairwell to the elevator. "When I was with him in the elevator he also touched me, and he was behaving like a psychopath. I was really afraid of him. I started to sense that something very strange was happening, because I noticed that I wasn't arriving at any workplace, and I didn't see any cup of coffee; so I started to get scared, and I screamed," she testifies.

When they got off the elevator at the building's top floor, B. claims, Kashur led her to the stairwell to the roof. There, she states, he raped her. "He took my pants and underpants off," B. says. "All this happened by force; I didn't agree to anything ... Then he took my clothes off; he then put saliva on his penis and there was, like, full penetration - this was not, as he says, with consent. He put me down on the floor, and then he started to kiss my breasts, and then, like, I asked that he stop, and I tried to push him away, but he pressured me with his hands. When I tried to push him with my hand on his stomach, then what had already happened once happened again, this was at a later stage; he was inside me, and then he said that if I kept quiet and stopped trying to resist him, it would be over more quickly, and he wouldn't, like, use force. But I resisted, and it happened by force."

...

"I was really hysterical," she testifies. At this stage, she noticed blood around her vagina, and that added to her fears. A few minutes later, her brother called, and B. asked him to contact a worker from the shelter. This woman quickly contacted B., who told her what happened.

...

Later, a Magen David Adom team showed up. B. states that she was later checked at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, which documented scratches on her body. The prosecution's files contains photographs of her wounds.

A few months later, the case went to court.

A few months later, on March 19, 2009, B. took the witness stand in the Jerusalem District Court and gave her version of events. The above quotes are the main part of her testimony. She appeared stressed, and seemed almost hysterical. Her words were broken and occasionally unclear; at certain points the judges offered her some water, and on one occasion she was advised to sit down and to try to calm down.

The person who brought the most emotion and rage out of B. was defense counsel Adnan Aladin. For instance, when he asked her about her background as a prostitute, B. yelled: "You already have completely confused me. You're looking at me and smiling, it's simply ..." Judge Zvi Segal then advised her: "You should look at us." B. replied: "He simply makes me lose my concentration, I'm sorry."

Ah yes, the old "you can't rape a prostitute" defense. Appalling, but effective, which is why most US courts don't allow that sort of evidence into cross examination against rape victims. That said, there is no question the woman faced problems with her testimony. There were significant inconsistencies. She had a history as a prostitute, and as victim of sexual abuse. She had made several such accusations in the past, with some convictions and some cases not prosecuted. What did the prosecutors do? They did what prosecutors do everywhere, pled the case to a lesser offense.

Under the plea bargain, the sides agreed to alter the charges from rape without consent to rape with consent attained through deception. The new indictment, filed on July 14, 2009, reformulated the facts, saying, "The accused, who was married, presented himself falsely to the complainant as an umarried Jew, and as someone who was interested in a serious relationship, and proposed that she accompany him to the building. As a result of this false presentation, the complainant agreed to accompany the defendant."

This was not a case of anti-miscegination laws, a racist woman, or a racist state.

I just thought some of you might want to know.

Originally posted to Palate Press: The online wine magazine on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm confused dhonig (16+ / 0-)

    How does this change the offense he was convicted of? He was not convicted of rape by force or without "consent," he was convicted of rape by trickery, or lack of "informed consent."  And this was not a case of the defendant failing to inform the woman he had an STD or even that he was married, but of deceiving her about his ethnicity.  From there, an appellate court (IIRC) concluded that a "reasonable person" might be persuaded not to have sex with an Arab on the basis of their ethnicity.  

    How does this change anything?

    "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

    by Alec82 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:07:44 AM PDT

  •  I pretended to be a Jewish man... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high5, IM, greatdarkspot, tazz

    to get a date with a woman on Plenty Of Fish.

    It all fell apart at some point, I don't remember when exactly. I think it was when I thought a Bar Mitzva was a place to get a few drinks.

  •  Might be helpful to put the plea agreement up (5+ / 0-)

    top.  It took me a couple of reads to get the point.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:15:55 AM PDT

  •  Do you have a transcript of the Father's trial? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, weasel, fl1972, Deep Texan

    None of this ended her father's abuse. Just a month before her encounter with Kashur, her father sexually assaulted her again,

    "What has happened down here is the wind have changed. Clouds roll in from the north and it started to rain"

    by senilebiker on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

  •  Too bad the truth won't make the rec list (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nonnie9999, MBNYC, volleyboy1, Mets102, issy98

    This is something everyone who followed this story should see, but likely most people won't. It's a lot easier to make the rec list by calling israel racist than by telling the truth about the situation.

  •  Weird, but if that's what you go by (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom J, fl1972, Deep Texan

    to link Israel and racism, you're stretching past far easier ties.

    Don't bother asking me, though, because if you can ignore the Palestinian apartheid, we have nothing productive to say to one another.

    If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

  •  Hypo (11+ / 0-)

    In the US, State of Nita passes a law criminalizing "rape by deception."  Man lies about being a Christian (he is in reality Jewish) in order to get a Christian fundie to sleep with him.  She finds out he is actually Jewish.  She files a complaint, and the man is charged with "rape by deception" in addition to simple rape for lying about his religion/ethnicity.  At the probable cause hearing/preliminary examination, she testifies that he forced himself on her.  There are multiple inconsistencies in her testimony, but he is bound over for trial.  "Rape by deception" has some fewer penalties.  The man knows that the sex was consensual and that she was lying about the use of force or lack of consent, but not the lack of "informed consent."  He agrees to plead guilty to "rape by deception," while preserving his right to appeal.  

    Naturally, all US liberals would be rooting for the man's conviction to be upheld, because the victim's original (if unreliable) testimony indicated that it was a case of force, and of course she has no incentive to lie.  And nothing about the prosecution has the slightest tinge of antisemitism or religious chauvinism, even if the court, in its opinion, determines that a "reasonable person who was Christian" would be dissuaded from consenting to sex with a Jewish person.    Maybe in the Twilight Zone.  

    "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

    by Alec82 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:54:10 AM PDT

    •  Different situation (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dhonig, JNEREBEL, arielle, Mets102

      In this case, the original charge was forcible rape.  But the defense and prosecution agreed to a plea based on a different offense, rape by deception.  

      It's similar to the prosecution charging someone with attempted murder, and accepting a plea for a battery charge instead.

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 02:05:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Rape by deception" is not a lesser included.. (0+ / 0-)

        ....offense to forcible rape, it is an offense with completely different elements.  The hypothetical I offered was the same:

        At the probable cause hearing/preliminary examination, she testifies that he forced himself on her.

        Nice attempt to distinguish it, though.  Seems very sectarian to me.

        "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

        by Alec82 on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 12:31:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for setting us all straight. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ubertar, David Kroning II

    eom

    Sarah Palin ... speaks truth. It remains to be seen if this nation has enough sanity left to put her in office. -- A RW blogger.

    by Kimball Cross on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:59:58 AM PDT

  •  Question: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Deep Texan

    If her history is true, why isn't her disgusting father in jail?  I feel terrible for her.

  •  What's amazing is that (8+ / 0-)

    Normally progressive people here are basically all over the victim in a rape case because of her nationality and the attackers nationality, at least that is how it seems to me. If this were reversed, I wonder how people would be commenting.

    Again this is only my opinion but it sure seems like this.

    Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

    by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 11:44:25 AM PDT

    •  volley.... (0+ / 0-)

      where do you see that?

    •  Actually, (7+ / 0-)

      that is not accurate.  Few people were "all over the victim," even those who were appalled by the racism of the law and the court enforcing it.  Most people focused on the bias in the legal system, not on attacking the woman.

      Please try to be accurate, even while speaking about people who dare to criticize Israel.  

      "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

      by weasel on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:09:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No prob. Mr. Accuracy. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychodrew, Mets102, issy98

        Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

        by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  As usual (6+ / 0-)

        You're wrong:

        A woman who approaches a man, strikes up a conversation, agrees to have sex with him within hours of meeting him, and then sends him to jail because he's an Arab, is actually a hell of a lot worse than "some chick", wouldn't you agree?

        And this woman is a bigot. Same for a man who found Arabs repugnant merely because they were Arab. It's curious that you accuse of mysogyny but insist that jailing this Arab is indicative of racism.

        You don't care much for your own credibility, do you?

        Clearly the woman who filed the charges is a racist.

        BTW: what's the penalty/sentence for being a really dumb meet-and-screw whore ?

        So much for the myth that all Jewish women are smarties.

        The woman IS to blame. Not for having sex with the guy, but for putting the guy in jail merely because she's prejudiced against Arabs.

        The Court had not business validating the woman's bigotry by lending its authority to punishing the man merely because of his ethnic background.

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

        by dhonig on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:28:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As usual, you are fibbing (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM, Rusty Pipes, Terra Mystica, Alec82, fl1972

          Of the several thousand comments on the subject, you can indeed find extremist comments.  However, those extremists received little-to-no support, as you likely know, since you avoided posting links to the comments so people could go check.

          For example:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          He's a whoremonger. Big whoop. (0+ / 3-)
          Hidden by:RumsfeldResign, borkitekt, uzeromay
          Now, if he'd claimed to be a dentist.................

          (That's the punch line from a not-so-different Long Island joke.)

          BTW: what's the penalty/sentence for being a really dumb meet-and-screw whore ?

          So much for the myth that all Jewish women are smarties.

          Kinky, yes; a smartie, maybe.

          Three HRs and not one rec.  Yuor and Volleyboy's smears don't hold up at all.  As I said, few people attacked the victim, and few people supported them.  The vast majority of the discussion focused on the racism in the system.

          "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

          by weasel on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:45:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You found one with HRs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            there were several others with recommendations. And you know it.

            Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

            by dhonig on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 01:04:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            arielle, issy98

            And of course it isn't the law that is at issue.. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:esquimaux, hillpeople, JesseCW, LightintheShadows
            ...although the law itself is quite dubious. It is the discriminatory application of the law by the court that constitutes the scandal, the decision to validate a woman's bigotry and prejudice toward Arabs.

            by Thomas C on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            No, the law doesn't say that (0+ / 0-)
            In fact, when someone was prosecuted for inducing a woman to have sex with him by misrepresenting himself as a neurosurgeon, he was only convicted of fraud, not rape.  This rape law, which essentially posits a form of constructive rape, is plainly limited to material misrepresentations. The problem with prosecuting this Arab fellow is that the court in effect found that a woman's prejudice against Arabs is a sufficient basis for deeming his misrepresentation material.

            There apparently is no reported case of a prosecution for having represented one's self as being unmarried, although this is certainly a daily occurrence in Israel and in every other nation on earth. There is no reported case of a prosecution for a Pisces claiming to be an Aquarius, or for a guy telling a woman that he owns a hot sports car.

            This was about a court validating the bigotry of a woman and discriminating against an Arab.

            by Thomas C on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:43:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            These are indeed unworthy of response.... (0+ / 0-)
            ...so perhaps you could address the facts that have been presented here, facts establishing prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, a corrupt and racist judge, and a court that permitted a case to go forward on the basis of nothing more than the testimony of an avowed liar.

            by Thomas C on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 01:59:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            And that was just from searching for one person.

            Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

            by dhonig on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 01:35:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Israel is currently a racist, apartheid state (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weasel, Rusty Pipes

    and it has nothing to do with this particular case.
    it's wholesale disregard for the rights of millions of people under its rule makes this clear enough.

    in between the diaries you refer to and this one, hundreds of Palestinians have been made homeless by Israel's relentless demolition program, farms have been vandalized by settler extremists(and others by the Israeli military), those protesting Israeli policies have been subject to brutal violence and many imprisoned.

    Israel continues its immoral and deadly siege of Gaza, denying Palestinians the right to clean drinking water and an ability to create a viable economy.

    Free Bradley Manning!

    by Tom J on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:48:55 PM PDT

    •  HEY LOOK OVER THERE (AGAIN)! (4+ / 0-)

      But coming from you that is no surprise.

      Hey Tom - L'shanah Tova v Gmar Hatimah Tova.

      Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

      by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 02:43:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought you had places (0+ / 0-)

        to be, thus, unable to answer my question.  

        •  No, I said I don't want to get into it.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul in Berkeley, Mets102

          dhonig did a nice job illustrating the comments you missed in his conversation with weasel.

          I just don't want to get into a shouting match.

          However, since you seem to be standing up for Tom here I assume you will be standing up for equal commentary in every diary. Right?

          Just look at the dhonig/weasel talk and you will see plenty of examples. If you still don't see it - then as I said... "More power to ya"

          BTW, where did I say I had "places to be" - can you point that out to me?

          Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

          by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 03:01:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand about the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            weasel

            comments from the previous diary, which I missed thankfully.  I was speaking specifically about this one.  I have no problem defending you volley.  And when you need defending I will do it.  You just seem to have enough people doing it.  And for someone who doesn't want to have a screaming match....you screamed at Tom in all caps, I might add.  

            •  Tis true that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102

              but Tom's comment really set me off. I shouldn't have. I should have just donutted it for bullshit and been away. BUT... anyway, I am going back to Fry'daze - it's nice and peaceful and very evenhanded. Honestly I thought dhonig did a good job bere so I tipped and rec.'d him. But yep, I need not to get lured into the B.S. - you make a good point.

              Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

              by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  it seems the premise of the diary is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weasel

        that the entire claim that Israel is a racist state is on this particular legal case. so looking at the big picture is entirely appropriate, if perhaps uncomfortable. israel remains a racist state.

        Free Bradley Manning!

        by Tom J on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:29:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's idiocy (5+ / 0-)

          if you can't tell the difference between the tail and the dog, I suggest you sniff. The part that smells like shit is the tail. The part that smells like bullshit is your comment.

          Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

          by dhonig on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 07:08:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The point remains (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alec82

          that it is a crime in Israel to claim that one is Jewish when one is not -- a lesser offense than forcible rape, but an offense which can draw legal penalties all the same.  Israel's ruling has the same smell as miscegenation rules in the Old South (you never mentioned that your greatgrandmother was Black before you seduced my daughter).  Israel can brand itself all it likes as The Only Democracy in the Middle East, but its own version of separate laws for different ethnicities is not equality.

          "Trolling is a sad reality of internet life...Directly replying to the content of a trollish message is usually a waste of time"

          by Rusty Pipes on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:19:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "one-diary-per-subject rule"?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rusty Pipes

    where is that?
    must be thinking of another forum.

    Free Bradley Manning!

    by Tom J on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:47:37 PM PDT

    •  Nope. (5+ / 0-)

      Duplicative diaries are prohibited. Please scan the recent diaries and front-page posts before starting to compose your own diary. This rule operates on a sliding scale. A repeat diary with minimal analysis or originality (particularly on "breaking news" items) is prohibited. Such diaries are subject to deletion without notice. But if you write on a recently-covered subject and provide original analysis or research, that is acceptable and in fact welcome.

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

      by dhonig on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 07:09:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's in the FAQ, (0+ / 0-)

      where it is as poorly enforced throughout the site as the one requiring diarists to back up their claims with data.  The term, "bunny diary" has a long history on this site and it wasn't coined in I/P.

      "Trolling is a sad reality of internet life...Directly replying to the content of a trollish message is usually a waste of time"

      by Rusty Pipes on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 06:23:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are a few more facts to consider, folks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rusty Pipes

    From the diarist's own link:

    The cross-examination revealed several problems with B.'s testimony. For instance, Aladin extensively questioned her claim to a police interrogator that she was a virgin before the incident

    She lied to the police right from the start.  And what a whale of a lie that one was.  Her credibility over the rest of the incident is, at best, now highly suspicious.

    Over the years, B. has submitted no fewer than 14 complaints, most of them for sex offenses, against her father and other people. Some were deemed to have merit, and the accused confessed and were sent to prison. Other complaints never led to indictments, either due to a lack of evidence or over doubts about the veracity of B.'s testimony.

    She has filed a whole bunch of complaints against men over sex but there have been doubts in the past over her truthfulness in many of them.  Additional credibility problems are now added to what's already a questionable story.

    When B. took the stand during the Kashur trial, the defense did not have access to these 14 complaints; it only had a short list of the cases, without supporting evidentiary material. Attorney Aladin thus requested to receive these files after B. testified, intending to put B. back on the stand and force her to respond to questions about cases where her complaints had not been verified, in an attempt to undermine her credibility in the Kashur case.

    The defense was not at first provided all of the facts concerning this woman and was hobbled by this denial of information.  Once the truth about her previous cases was available, the defense had the means necessary to undermine her already very shaky credibility.

    The prosecution saw this as a serious threat to their case, so they dropped the forcible rape charge down to this ridiculous "deception" crime.

    The new indictment, filed on July 14, 2009, reformulated the facts, saying, "The accused, who was married, presented himself falsely to the complainant as an umarried Jew, and as someone who was interested in a serious relationship, and proposed that she accompany him to the building. As a result of this false presentation, the complainant agreed to accompany the defendant."

    Plus, the prosecution now admits that the sex was consentual, but obtained through misrepresentation of fact about his background.

    The idea that there was ANY crime committed because the man presented himself as something he was not in order to have sex with this woman is ludicrous.  It shouldn't matter if he told her he was in the Israeli Astronaut Program.

    That the charge still includes reference to ethnicity certainly carries strong overtones of racism - at least on her part.  That the Israeli government (the prosecution) includes as part of this man's alleged crime the charge of "not being a Jew" sure sounds awfully racist to me.

    And this poor woman's horrible past has no bearing whatsoever on the events being judged here.  Her fucked-up father, her drug abuse, her prostitution - these things deserve NO CONSIDERATION when judging if a crime had been committed that day.  She either consented or she didn't.  If her story of forcible rape has no credibility and the sex was consentual, then there was no crime committed.

    All that's left is "he was married, he expressed interest in being her boyfriend, and he's (OMG!) NOT A JEW" as being the "crimes" he committed that day - as per the official charges against him.  She never asked him for money in exchange for the sex, so this isn't even a prostitution bust!

    That a man can be prosecuted for having sex with a Jewish woman when he isn't Jewish sets a very ugly precedent in ANY legal system.

    While I agree with the diarist that attacks against the woman for having previously been a whore are wrong and that there was more to this than ANYBODY knew because this woman's testimony was sealed, I don't see a single shred of evidence in either the diary or the Haaretz report suggesting that racism isn't a huge part of this prosecution.

    Celtic Merlin
    Carlinist

    Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

    by Celtic Merlin on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 11:57:02 PM PDT

    •  Or that it is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JNEREBEL, RedPencil, Mets102

      and that is the point.

      The victim did not choose the lesser charge, so to say it carries strong overtones of racism, "at least on her part," just doesn't make sense.

      He was not prosecuted for having sex with a Jewish woman when he wasn't Jewish. That is just a falsehood.

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

      by dhonig on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:16:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it IS what he's charged with. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rusty Pipes

        Re-read the Haaretz article.  His criminal charge includes the crime of claiming to be a Jew when he's not and having sex with a Jewish woman on that basis.

        You can deny it all day long and all night too, but that won't change the facts, dhonig.  The actual text of what he's charged with includes falsely claiming to be a Jew.  Read the charge yourself.  It's in the Haaretz article - down near the bottom.  Do you need it quoted at you?

        It doesn't get alot more racist than that.

        You'd probably agree with my point of view much more readily if a man was being criminally charged with having consentual sex with a woman while hiding from her the fact that he was a Jew - and being prosecuted for THAT "crime".

        Celtic Merlin
        Carlinist

        Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

        by Celtic Merlin on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 10:28:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JNEREBEL, Mets102

          The criminal charge is not specific to religion, it is simply "rape by deception," then describes the particular deception. It is a law on the books in several countries, and is not specifically related to religion, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

          Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

          by dhonig on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 07:43:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fail. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alec82

            From your own link:

            The new indictment, filed on July 14, 2009, reformulated the facts, saying, "The accused, who was married, presented himself falsely to the complainant as an umarried Jew, and as someone who was interested in a serious relationship, and proposed that she accompany him to the building. As a result of this false presentation, the complainant agreed to accompany the defendant."

            The new indictment says, "...presented himself falsely to the complainant as an umarried Jew..."  Notice the quotation marks included in the blockquoted text?  I didn't put those in there, Haaretz did.  They're quoting the indictment itself.  They're quoting the legal document binding him over for trial.  He's to be tried for those specific crimes, which include pretending to be a Jew.  Do you know what an indictment is - what it means in any legal system?

            You must have missed that part, huh?  That's pretty "specific to religion" and is blatantly racist.  There's no denying that.  Especially when it is as plain as the nose on your face in the text of the indictment.  Have somebody else read it to you so you don't miss it again.

            Change it to an indictment of a black man in Alabama in the 1930's with "Jew" changed out for "white man" and it may then become clear to you how strong is the racism in there.

            I didn't make that the racist thing that it is.  Those Israelis did.

            Not just a river in Egypt, dhonig.

            Celtic Merlin
            Carlinist

            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

            by Celtic Merlin on Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 07:50:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site