Israeli Court Calls Lying for Sex Rape

For those stumbling upon this story months later, there is new evidence that suggests that this was in fact a forcible rape, not a “rape of deception”.  At the same time, it is unlikely that the Kashur will be re-tried; thus, we may never know what transpired. I think it is important to consider the possibility that Kashur’s attorneys did indeed bully the victim’s attorneys into accepting a plea, based on her sexual history.  Nevertheless, my stance on the judge’s verdict–given that he had limited knowledge of the facts–stands.

A recent case in Israel has stunned and baffled many; as the story goes, a young Arab man introduces himself as “Dudu” (his family nickname, but also a comment nickname for David) to an Israeli Jewish woman on the street.  Shortly thereafter, they have sex, at which point he ditches her while she’s still getting dressed and leaves.  According to most news sources, upon finding out the man was in fact an Arab and not a Jew, the woman called rape.

I’m incredibly sensitive to rape charges, and particularly, have advocated in the past to release the burden of proof from the victim (meaning instead that the perpetrator would have to prove that he didn’t commit the crime).  I’m also incredibly sensitive to the issue of calling a woman promiscuous in rape cases; women who have had multiple sexual partners are very often devalued as defendants in rape cases, deemed to have been “asking for it.”  In any case, in the below, I am working from the assumption–provided to me by the Israeli media and the victim’s testimony–that this “rape” did not involve force and is in fact solely deemed rape because the man was not up front about his ethnicity.

That said, my issue is not with the defendant (who, for all we know, may have actually been raped).  My issue is with the logistics of the case, and particularly with the judge’s ruling.

The judge, Tzvi Segal, stated that a rape conviction could be upheld when:

“a person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman”

The judge also stated:

“If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated.”

The implication here is that the defendant thought that the man slept with only a few minutes after meeting was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, and that, had she known he was of a different race, she never would’ve considered intercourse.  Perhaps more importantly, the court seems to have ruled that a reasonable Jewish woman would not have had sex with an Arab, presumably based solely on the fact of his ethnicity alone.

Problematically, much of the media coverage has implied, through headlines, that the man lied to the woman by saying that he was Jewish, when based on his testimony, it was actually a lie by omission.  Morally dubious?  Perhaps, but when you jump into bed with someone five minutes after meeting them, you should reasonably expect that a whole lot of information has been omitted.  You are unlikely to know your partner’s line of work, his marital status (the man was also married, incidentally), even their HIV status.

Given the general consensus in Israel on intermarriage (the latter half of Robert Mackey’s Lede Blog post today gives a good description), perhaps our man is simply being held as a scapegoat, a warning to Arab men that choose to get involved with Israeli women.  Or perhaps Israelis are finding other means, given this morning’s news item about an Arab man attacked for simply talking to a Jewish woman.

Tags: , , ,