Israel “rape by deception” case not so simple

September 11, 2010 | Filed under: Judicial | Posted by: Mike Daniels

Back in July of this year, we told you of a Israeli Arab man convicted of raping an Israeli Jewish woman after consensual sex, because she believed him to be Jewish. Newly-released court records paint a different picture.

In 2008, Sabbur Kashur met a woman on the street in Jerusalem. According to information released in July, he told the woman his name was David, leading her to believe that the Muslim was in fact Jewish. They had sex that same day, and she later called the police after learning he was not Jewish. Kashur received an 18-month sentence for “rape by deception”, after having spent two years under house arrest. Outrage against the bigotry of Israeli officials and of the woman herself ensued.

Tel Aviv-based newspaper Haaretz has reviewed 100 pages of recently-declassified court records and testimony relevant to this case, and finds a very different story.

Don’t read Hebrew? Well, neither do I. An English translation of the Haaretz story is available here.

Based on the incomplete facts published thus far in the case, Kashur’s role as a victim became established over the past month and a half, and rightfully so. However, according to the testimony of the complainant, the full story appears to be much more complex, and the victim is the one Kashur left naked in the staircase of the building on 13 Ben Hillel Street (publishing her name is forbidden and she will be called here B.). The new details shed completely new light on this case, and haven’t been published until today because they were first revealed in B.’s testimony in court, which was classified as it was said in a trial behind closed doors. Following the request of “HaIr” [local Haaretz-affiliated newspaper in Tel Aviv – E], the court recently declassified the testimony and paved the way for its publication. The testimony details in 100 pages B.’s tragic life story and her version of the events that happened on that afternoon two years ago, and is exposed here for the first time.

In brief, the “rape by deception” was a plea agreement after Kashur enticed the young woman into a stairwell, where he raped her and left her half-naked and bleeding. She agreed to the plea deal to avoid the trauma of a courtroom cross-examination, as she had been raped by her father and forced into prostitution by him at an early age.

The original story in Hebrew may be found here. A Google Translate version, here, is in broken English as is expected from automated translators, but confirms the English translation noted above.

10 Responses to Israel “rape by deception” case not so simple

AEWHistory September 11, 2010 - 9:41 pm

So where are all the commentators now? You all know what I mean, the folks saying this was "blatant racism" and other rubbish like that? C'mon, let's hear it! I'm waiting for all the Israel bashers to come to a rapists defense….

- giveitup September 16, 2010 - 2:35 am
  
  Dont be a dick, dick, people can only react to the news they are given.
  
  - AEWHistory September 18, 2010 - 11:00 pm
    
    While I'd like to agree with that, I can only do so in principle. The fact of the matter is that people often read these stories–stories that leave out key details due to malfeasance or incompetence–and gladly jump on the "Israel is evil" bandwagon. So let me ask you something…. how many of those people have you called a dick? And how many of them have manned up and said, "oops, sorry, I rushed to judgment… AGAIN…. about Israel." Because frankly over the last ten years I've gone from being very sympathetic to those critical of Israel to outright loathing because of these very instances. Here's an example: remember al-Dura? Palestinian child supposedly killed by the IDF in a firefight with Palestinian terrorists/militants? The world condemned Israeli brutality, articles were written, the U.N. had a field day, Arab countries have an al-Dura day and al-Dura streets and so on. Well, it turns out that not only did Israel not kill this kid, it isn't even clear that he's dead! So you wanna know what its like dealing with a real dick? When you are guilty until proven innocent. That was the turning point for me and that is why I posted the above comment. Was my comment vitriolic? Sure, But I simply do not accept that people have to "react to the news they are given" when the story has just been released and is likely to either change or be enlarged upon. That is simply a rush to judgment. Now why would you do that?
    
    - Mike_Daniels September 19, 2010 - 9:12 pm
      
      So you wanna know what its like dealing with a real dick? When you are guilty until proven innocent.
      
      While I'm sure there are cases of Israel being falsely or incorrectly accused, in this case, the Israeli court released to the international press the information that a man was being jailed for "rape by deception", for not acknowledging that he was an Arab before consensual sex. If you would care to point fingers of "malfeasance or incompetence", you may feel free to point them at the court which released these lies in the first place. There is no "rush to judgment" when the court itself releases the information, supposedly as fact.
      
mikespeir September 12, 2010 - 6:06 am

Well, I wasn't one of those commenters, AEWHistory. Whenever I hear a story this outrageous, unless it's coming from someplace like Iran, I'm pretty sure we're not getting the whole picture.

- AEWHistory September 18, 2010 - 11:08 pm
  
  Despite my point being perhaps a wee bit acerbic, you've hit one the gist of my point. I have gotten very frustrated with this rush to judgment against Israel (although, to be fair, it is more than Israel, its just that the Israelis get the shaft so often). But thank you for posting. It is nice to know that others out there weren't suckered into that original bogus story. I'd just like to see a few of those who'd "convicted" Israel as racist come forward and admit they were wrong…. but oddly that never happens…. I wonder why?
  
AEWHistory September 23, 2010 - 10:21 pm

While I understand and appreciate your point, I still must disagree as to people rushing to judgment. Simply, it is not "kosher" to assume that all of the details to any case–ongoing or closed–will be made to the public, especially when it involves a potential sex-crime. Consequently, there are two ways that one can interpret the limited initial information: 1. That that is the entire story and that Israel is racist. The problem, as I've said, as some details are always withheld this assumption is, in fact, the very definition of a "rush to judgment." 2. Or you can assume that there is more to this story. You may or may not ever find out what… in this case we did, probably as a reaction to the public response would be my guess. Other reasons could be that the plea agreement had not yet been reached or the victim's consent was still being sought…. things like this. In any event, you may well be right that the courts released poor information here–I can see that and cannot disagree–but there are other equally compelling explanations like those I've mentioned above. What bothers me is that this has become a common theme I've seen among posters, writers, newspersons, even governments: if something about Israel has been reported that can be construed negatively, it will be. And if something is negative, it must be true. And if it is true, then Israel must be guilty of doing bad things…. and so on. That's scary thinking…. at least to me.

- Mike_Daniels September 24, 2010 - 6:22 pm
  
  Israel IS guilty of doing bad things, as is every nation on Earth. However, in this case, an Israeli court is guilty of doing a poorly-thought-out thing.
  
  - AEWHistory September 25, 2010 - 7:26 pm
    
    You're missing the point. Every person, every nation, and so on, is guilty of doing bad things; I agree with you wholeheartedly. But do mistakes, or even crimes for that matter, absolve those you sit in judgment of the now universally held right that every entity deserves to be held innocent until proven guilty? Of course not. And you're correct that it appears that the Israeli courts handled this poorly. The problem is that this judgment is still damning without much of any proof (I've already given some alternate explanations for this above). However, I'll give you another explanation that is pretty damning, but not of Israel. My wife worked in journalism for quite a few years, albeit in television, and she's always pointing out little editing things that newscasters, reality show, and documentary filmmakers do. Well, much of this applies to written journalism I'm afraid. How exactly do you know what the Israeli courts reported to these reporters compared to what the REPORTERS reported? What was the reporter's agenda? And so on. You're assumption is that the news is somehow completely unbiased, as if humans as not involved, but I've been interviewed enough and seen the process enough to know that while you might be right, it is just as possible that the original article was written by an ignorant reporter who misunderstood or, worse, a reporter with an agenda. Understanding that, and having no information to distinguish, why assume this is the fault of the Israeli courts? Is that not, if not a rush to judgment, at least a hasty judgment?
    
    - Mike_Daniels September 26, 2010 - 12:24 am
      
      I see no rush to judgment at all. The Israeli court had three months to demand a correction of any inaccurate statements. They made no such demands . . . if they had, there are plenty of media outlets as pro-Israel as you assume the BBC is anti-Israel, and they would have been all over it. Such as Haaretz. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the charges, sentence, and quotes as reported were accurate. The court further did not provide a press release or other statement when the court documents were released, saying "Hey, this is what really happened!" Rather, Haaretz reviewed the documents at such time as they were public. I see no reason to believe that the BBC or other news sources went out of their way to lie about what information the court released. Sorry, if you don't like people reacting to what the court releases as fact, then blame the court for releasing incomplete information.