Arab jailed for having sex with a Jewish girl while pretending to be a Jew

Posted: July 20th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: In the News, racism | Tags: , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

No less than 18 months in prison for East Jerusalem Palestinian. Judge: “the Court must protect the public interest against sophisticated criminals with a smooth tongue and sweet talking, who can lead astray innocent victims”

The main reason for which the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder notorious Kach party, was kicked out of the Knesset in the 80′s was the set of racist bills he tried to pass in the Israeli parliament. One of the most well known of them was intended to make sexual relations between Arab and Jews a criminal offense. In his verdict verifying the Knesset’s decision not to let Kahana run again for election, Meir Shamgar, the president of the Supreme Court, wrote that Kahane’s actions were reminding “the worst harms that were imposed upon our people.”

These are different times.

Yesterday, a Palestinian of East Jerusalem was sent to a year and a half in prison (!) for getting a Jewish girl to sleep with him after pretending to be a Jew.

Here is the report from Maariv, Translated from Hebrew by Dena Shunra:

Jail time for Arab who impersonated a Jew and raped through fraud

By Shmuel Mittelman, 19 July 2010 14:38

Sabar Kashour, a young man from East Jerusalem , was sentenced today (Monday) to 18 months in prison after having defrauded and thereby raped and committed indecent acts upon a Jewish young woman, who only yielded to him because she thought he was a Jew. Additionally, the judges – Deputy Presiding Justice Zvi Segal, Moshe Dror, and Yoram  Noam required Kashour to pay the complainant financial compensation amounting to NIS 10,000.

The prosecution representative, Adv. Daniel Vittman, argued that Kashour had indeed carried out his plot without the use of force, but that he had dissipated her ability to object to his actions by means of the false representation about his personal situation – [claiming that he was] a Jewish bachelor interested in a significant romantic relationship. In this way he abused her desire for a deep emotional relationship, which was the only reason that she agreed to have sexual relations with him.
According to the indictment, to which Kashour (30) entered a guilty plea, he presented himself to a young woman whom he met in the center of Jerusalem in 2008 as a Jewish bachelor interested in a significant romantic relationship, despite the fact that he is married.

He invited her to accompany him to a building on Hillel Street. When they came to the top floor, Kashour undressed the young woman and had intercourse with her, with her consent, that had been fraudulently achieved, as stated above. After having carried out his scheme, he departed from the building and left her naked, on the top floor of that building.

“Not a ‘classic’ act of rape”

The prosecution first claimed that the complainant actively and significantly objected to the events, but in the course of the trial the young woman testified that she had agreed to the action because she had thought that the person in question was a Jew. In light of that the indictment was amended, and the defendant was accused of rape and indecent actions by way of fraud.

Kashour accepted partial responsibility for the crimes of rape and indecent actions, but claimed that the deeds were carried out with the full consent of the complainant. The Probation Service was of the impression that in the course of his detention the defendant underwent “a process of soul-searching”, and that he was investing effort in living a normative lifestyle. For this reason the Service recommended that a short term of imprisonment, to be served in community service, be deemed sufficient.

Defense Counsel Adv. Adnan Aladin asked that the positive report by the Probation Service be taken into account. He said that this report indicated his client’s “high potential for rehabilitation.”

He asked that “appropriate proportions be maintained” between the actions and the mete penalty, and stressed that Kashour had no criminal record, admitted to the actions ascribed to him and took responsibility for his actions. For this reason he asked that a sentence of six months of community service be deemed sufficient.

Justice Segal stated that there was no dispute about the fact that the defendant hadn committed the crime of rape upon the complainant. He had admitted to doing so, and this was why he had been convicted, by force of law. “Indeed,” he stressed, “we do not have before us a ‘class’ case of rape – by force – and the indictment initially filed, which had indicated significant objection by the complainant to the actions by the defendant, had been amended further in the proceedings, after hearing her testimony, when it became clear that the actions were indeed carried out with her consent, but that it had been fraudulently obtained, relying on false representation. Has she not been of the opinion that he was a Jewish bachelor interested in a significant

“Basic human obtuseness”

Segal added that the rehabilitation of the defendant did indeed seem accessible and possible, but “with all possible goodwill and intention to meet him part of the way and reduce his punishment inasmuch as possible, I do not believe that this is the case where a prison term can be served in the form of community service.” Moreover, in his opinion serving a prison term does not cancel out existing rehabilitation achievements nor negate possible future achievements.

The judge stated that “the Court must protect the public interest against sophisticated criminals with a smooth tongue and sweet talking, who can lead astray innocent victims at the unbearable price of the sanctity of their bodies and souls.”

He stated that “when the foundation of trust between people falls away, especially in matters so sensitive, intimate, and fateful, the Court must stand firm on the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their well-being. Otherwise they will be abused, manipulated, cheated, and the cost will be a tolerable, token penalty.”

Segal further added that: “one cannot know or fully understand what the complainant felt after the defendant left the building, leaving her behind – naked, at the top floor. The realization of the truth after such a deceit cannot be easy; it requires a sturdy spirit and faith in the good things that are still in store, in the future. Having done what he did the defendant displayed basic human obtuseness toward his victim, as if she were only the means to satisfy his desires, and nothing more.”

Many men lie to get sex. Now we know which lies are forbidden in Israel.

Many men lie to get sex. Now we know which lies are forbidden in Israel.


18 Comments on “Arab jailed for having sex with a Jewish girl while pretending to be a Jew”

  1. 1 Noam w said at 5:44 am on July 20th, 2010:

    This is a bit more complex. I agree that there are of course disgusting racial undertones, but the prohibition against rape in Israel (and in many other places) includes getting a woman to have sex by deceit.

    So, for me, this is what you might call a hard case.

  2. 2 noam said at 6:02 am on July 20th, 2010:

    Noam: the legal definition here is so broad there that until now the use was only in very extreme cases: like the guy who pretended to be a pilot and asked money from a series of women, or the Chen Alkoby case. But this is clearly not one of these cases: it was a one-time incident, a classic first-date sex. with the court’s logic you can send half of Israel’s men behind bars.

    here is a simple test: if it was a christian, say an American tourist, that pretended to be a Jew, do you think he would have been jailed?

  3. 3 Shunra said at 7:26 am on July 20th, 2010:

    If the law were being applied equally to all persons, you could sort of make the case that lying for the purpose of obtaining “sexual favors” is a criminal offense.

    However, knowing what the dating scene in Israel was like a decade and a bit ago, I don’t think you could make that case.

    Also, and this has been bugging me since I first read the article: how exactly will the man’s “rehabilitation” be measurable? The only answer I see (no more sex with Jewish women) is almost the worst part of this whole story.

  4. 4 Milo said at 9:22 am on July 20th, 2010:

    This is such a racist ruling! According to Jewish law this woman should not have been having sex out of marriage anyway – what about that? Are we going to be asking for documents now prior to entering into sexual relations – its totally her fault for not being responsible, and she lied in the first place claiming that she was forced – the only reason it wasnt thrown out of court is bc the man was Palestinian. Lets all try to be equal as human beings and stop this complete racism.

  5. 5 leila said at 10:28 am on July 20th, 2010:

    so according to israeli law, any sex obtained by deceit is rape, which means that a lot of normative sexual liaisons could lead to a jail sentence if brought to court. as previous commenters stated, much casual sex is obtained by deceit of one sort or another. how many women, finding out the lies (i’m single, i have a great job / a high income etc) take a case to court?

    the question is, why, in this case, did the woman bring the case – whose racism is this? the court’s (putting aside the excessive sentence, which they had a discretion over) or hers?

    this statement, just as much as the decision of the court, prompts my disgust: ‘ the young woman testified that she had agreed to the action because she had thought that the person in question was a Jew.’

  6. 6 Camilla said at 10:47 am on July 20th, 2010:

    I totally agree with Leila: I would have jailed her, ’cause someone who only wants to have sex with people who share his religion is a fanatic. This case is unbelievable. Maybe it will change after the appeal.

  7. 7 Elizabeth said at 11:31 am on July 20th, 2010:

    ALL lies to women to get sex are illegal in Israel. Please look at Israel’s Criminal Code Paragraph 345(a)(2) that defines rape:
    הבועל אשה –
    בהסכמת האשה, שהושגה במרמה לגבי מיהות העושה או מהות המעשה;
    (My translation): “A male who has sex with a woman with her consent, which was elicited with deceit about the essence of the perpetrator or essence of the act”.

    Get your facts straight.

  8. 8 Noam w said at 11:34 am on July 20th, 2010:

    Asking for money from women by lying and saying you’re a pilot is blackmail, not rape. And I am well aware, of course, of the racial overtones of this ruling.

    What I am trying to be very careful about, however, is spilling the water with the baby. I don’t know if half the men in Israel lie to have sex. I don’t what lies they tell and either way I don’t know if that is alright. What I am worried about is the development of discourse regarding rape similar to the discourse regarding sexual harassment – remember “everybody does it” and “now we won’t be able to say anything without worrying about offending somebody”.

    I don’t want to be come out all moralist on this, but I want to think about the criminal prohibition – lying in order to achieve sex – and see if it is so off-putting that this man should not have been found guilty even if there were no racial overtones.

    And perhaps in current day Israel that is an unhelpful exercise. I am now rambling so I’ll stop.

  9. 9 noam said at 11:55 am on July 20th, 2010:

    Elizabeth – the question is who get prosecuted.

  10. 10 noam said at 11:57 am on July 20th, 2010:

    noam – I agree with your final thoughts. this might be a good law, but it’s used for racial persecution today.

    and your rambling is welcomed here any time.

  11. 11 Frank said at 5:01 pm on July 20th, 2010:

    Too many Noams..

  12. 12 Yoni said at 2:59 am on July 21st, 2010:

    How different would the ruling have been had the man said he was a multimillionaire but turned out to be on benefits instead? Would she have brought the case at all? I doubt it. The court’s sentance is perhaps stringent, but the issue is primarily the girls’s racism. Nevertheless, if it is illegal to obtain sex by deception, that is law. It is obviously generally unenforeceable in practice under most circumstances. Unless, as one of the noams suggests, it is used for Kach-like discrimination

  13. 13 haya said at 8:17 am on July 21st, 2010:

    As in the song ” I started a joke … but the joke was on me” Poor man he paid high for his joke. Food for thought: in other countries jews try to hide their religion or israeli nationality but they wo’nt accept this behavior from others, namely Arabs.

  14. 14 Stephen said at 5:59 am on July 22nd, 2010:

    Let’s get one thing straight. At one time or another BOTH sexes use deception to get someone else into bed. Men don’t tell the truth about all kinds of things, from their sexual prowess to the fact that the fact that their full-head of hair is in fact a toupee, while women famously lie about their age.

    However, that is merely the tip of the deception iceberg. The entire point of a woman’s makeup, for example, is to deceive the eye–male eyes in particular–into thinking of her as prettier than Mother Nature has contrived to make her; and that is only the beginning. Hair dyes, collagen, breast implants, and a whole range of other things all have much the same intent: to DECEIVE. They are tools women use to hide and/or ramp up their natural looks, in the hope that by doing so they will thereby attract some roving male eye who will, in turn, then wander over and start feeding her a line or two.

    Now imagine if it was the men who wore the makeup and had the implants etc, then take another look at the Israeli law Elizabeth quoted. Especially this part of it: “…was elicited with deceit about the essence of the perpetrator…”

    Think about those words. By accident or design, that law is not just banning lies, let alone lies of a coldly calculating kind. It is also banning makeup! It is banning surgery. It is banning collagen, hair dyes, and just about every other tool one or other (or both) sexes have used, legitimately, in the game of love ever since Adam took Eve to bed.

    Why? Because they are all essentially a form of “deceit about the [true] essence of the perpetrator”.

    Of course, in real life most men don’t wear makeup. On the other hand, if you are an Israeli guy who is starting to go a little grey at the temples and are using a colouring agent to touch it up before you go out to meet the ladies. Or are using a toupee to hide the bald spots. Or shoulder pads. Have a care! You are potentially in breach of section 345(2)!

    All this has come about because that provision is basically brain-dead. Those who dreamt it up were presumably trying to make rape convictions easier, but in doing so they threw natural justice out the window as well as just plain common sense. The only reason the damage has been fairly limited thus far is because: (a) men don’t use most of the things it potentially bans, and (b) the provision is blatantly sexual discriminatory. It is skewed AGAINST men in FAVOUR of women.

    The consequences would have been far more interesting had that provision read: “A person who has sex with any other person with their consent, which was elicited with deceit about the essence of the perpetrator or essence of the act” was guilty of rape. Had that been the case a guy who took what he thought was a 25-year-old blonde to bed only to find out the next morning that she was actually a 35-year-old brunette would find himself entitled, in principle, to have that woman charged with rape–on the ground that she had deceived him “about the essence” of herself.

    And that wouldn’t even be the half of it! Any lie or other deceit he had used himself to get her into that same bed could also be used by her to get him charged with rape as well! Imagine the lawyers’ picnic then!

    Just plain stupid doesn’t even begin to describe that law. It should be fixed ASAP before it does any worse damage, even if only to Israel’s reputation.

  15. 15 Stephen Shenfield said at 10:06 am on July 25th, 2010:

    What I find most disturbing is the judge’s statement about the “unbearable price of the sanctity of [victims'] bodies and souls.” Doesn’t this refer to Jewish bodies and souls being sacred and polluted by contact with non-Jewish bodies? Like the attitude of caste Hindus to untouchables — or Streicher’s propaganda? But I can’t see how to interpret this otherwise.

  16. 16 noam said at 1:48 am on July 26th, 2010:

    Stephen: there is logic in the law. the state has recognized that women need extra protection due to the social circumstances which gives men more power over them. but “protection” can be asked for in this case only if you hold the racist belief that relations between Jews and Arabs are morally wrong and even criminal.

    I would have rejected the verdict, not the law.

  17. 17 Nicole said at 12:01 pm on July 27th, 2010:

    I agree that getting consent through deception is despicable, and should maybe even be actionable on some level. But I also agree that this is such common male behavior that you could indict about half the patrons of any given dance club on any given Saturday night.

    As others have said, the question here is enforcement. A law which is selectively applied to a specific ethnic group may or may not be racist in its conception, but is certainly racist in its application.

  18. 18 Required said at 10:40 am on July 29th, 2010:

    What is a Jew anyway? Legally? Is it a genetic classification, as Hitler may have concocted (or even the one-drop rule: http://bit.ly/KSACx), or can one just say “I hereby convert to Judaism” and they are done? If the latter, then his so called act-of-deceit makes him Jewish. At least for the period of coitus, and until the time of reversion, if any. If the former, then one of those genetic tests will probably reveal that she is likely more Arab than she might think, and he more Jewish than it might be alleged. (I am told I am an Arab, but based on bits and pieces of history I have uncovered recently, I have wondered how Jewish I might be — you know, prophet Mohammed’s adopted son was of Jewish descent.)