Half right


By Jenni Frazer
December 30, 2010
Share

After the verdict that found former Israeli President Moshe Katzav guilty on two counts of rape and other charges of sexual harassment, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "This is a sad day for the State of Israel and its residents." He went on to say: "Today, the court conveyed two clear-cut messages — that all are equal before the law and that every woman has exclusive rights to her body."
Well, Bibi, you were half right. The two messages from the court that no-one is above the law and that all women have exclusive rights to their bodies ought certainly to resonate in Israel. But to say it was a sad day for the state of Israel and its residents is surely the very reverse of the truth. It is a shining triumph for Israeli justice, nothing less. Israel should be proud that it can call to account every citizen, no matter how powerful, and that he or she will be required to answer for what they have done.
Meanwhile, however, apart from the natural desire of members of Katzav's family to support him, there are some rather distressing attempts, out in the blogosphere, to defend his actions. The female accusers, it is suggested, should be identified, as though they had not been victimised enough.
Slightly more scary are those who are saying that Katzav only did what he did - as though he could not help himself - because he and the women breached the halachic stricture of "ichud", whereby a man and a woman should not be alone in a room together unless they are married (to each other, it apparently needs to be said).
On various websites I have seen the women whom Katzav sexually harassed, denounced as if it was they who were at fault, the old canard of "asking for it", and not just by virtue of their dress, rather by their very presence.
Once again Israel is dividing across religious lines: secular Jews were more inclined to believe Katzav was guilty, observant Jews appear to be scrabbling about to find excuses for his behaviour.
Some things, however, as the court pointed out this morning, are indefensible, no ifs, no buts. Why is that so hard to understand?

COMMENTS

Joe Millis

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 17:12

Rate this:

1 point

Spot on Jenni.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 17:42

Rate this:

-1 points

I'm sure Katzav will appeal the verdict. So let's wait until he is finally convicted before accepting the verdict as granted.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 17:50

Rate this:

-1 points

But Netanyahu's comments are very clear and non-partisan, so I don't see how it can be interpreted in a bad light.
It is a brilliant illustration of the rule of law in Israel that even Western democracies do not match. And on the other side, it is a very sad day that see's a country's president convicted for such a shameful crime.

Nothing to be critical about. Unless of course, one is very partisan indeed.


Joe Millis

Thu, 12/30/2010 - 18:07

Rate this:

1 point

He has been "finally convicted", irrespective of whether he appeals or not. If his appeal is successful, assuming he appeals, his conviction will be overturned. But until that time he is guilty of rape and sexual harassment. I wonder if he'll be put in the nonce's wing.


Jenni Frazer

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 09:16

Rate this:

0 points

For those who are concerned to find out about the figures on this issue, see Ha'aretz


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 09:44

Rate this:

-1 points

In Iran or Saudi the women would have been buried alive and stoned to death for pre/extramarital sex.

In Italy, would such a case ever hve come to Court?

Yes we can be proud of Israel's democracy and independent judiciary.


Joe Millis

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:04

Rate this:

1 point

Jonathan, would you like Israel to be more like Saudi, Iran or Sudan? Some people seem to mention them an awful lot in comparisons with Israel.


Joe Millis

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:19

Rate this:

1 point

Jenni, you mentioned the H-word. They won't like that, they won't.


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:26

Rate this:

-1 points

You're right Joe, we don't like the "H" word, although in this context there is nothing to take issue with, they are just reporting a survey.


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:39

Rate this:

0 points

Assuming what Simon reports above is right, it actually makes matters worse, if Pears only "facilitated" the Ging contact but the Limmud organisers themselves thought it fit to invite John Ging is truly bizare. Do they really have such short memories?
Who will they invite next time?
Ismail Hanniyeh?
Khaled Meshal?
Hassan Hassrallah?


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:59

Rate this:

-1 points

What's happened to Simon Rockers report?
Censored?


jose (not verified)

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 11:32

Rate this:

-1 points

Ahhh, Milligramsam, your interpretation of law is as good as reading comprehension.


jose (not verified)

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 11:33

Rate this:

1 point

What's happened to Simon Rockers report?
Censored?

It's in Jonathan's blog, not Jenni's.


Jenni Frazer

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:51

Rate this:

2 points

I have just been looking at one of the main Orthodox websites, Vos Is Neias, and am slightly shocked to find that the Katzav verdict is not reported at all. Other news from the past 24 hours, including the large gas energy find, is on the site, so it cannot be the case that there is no-one updating. A mystery indeed.


Joe Millis

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 16:05

Rate this:

3 points

Jenni, there's nothing in Bechadrei Charedim, the ultra-Orthodox news website.


Yoni1

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 17:43

Rate this:

0 points

"I'm sure Katzav will appeal the verdict. So let's wait until he is finally convicted before accepting the verdict as granted."

What utter drivel. He has been found guilty. At this point he is guilty.
Speculations as to what may or may not happen if he does appeal - which he may or may not do - and if flying saucers with mind-bending beams do or do not arrive and do or do not cause the judges to declare that they had been under the influence of LSD during the trial and a retrial is necessary, are plain silly.


Kahina

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 17:51

Rate this:

2 points

Is the JC reporting on it? Or another major Israel story that they're omitting from their news?


Joe Millis

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 17:59

Rate this:

1 point

It's on the website, Kahina. I'll hazard a guess that the JC went to press before the verdict was in so it's not in the print version


Kahina

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 18:12

Rate this:

1 point

Joe, you need to get back in the JC, as you're the only one that's happy to work all hours to update the website ;)


Joe Millis

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 18:33

Rate this:

1 point

Kahina, thanks but my JC days are well and truly behind me. Have we met?


Kahina

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 18:33

Rate this:

1 point

It's such a confusing website here... if you click on news, nothing comes up. Then world news.... zero. Only found the story by clicking the JC logo. Who designs this site? It's impossible to navigate.


Joe Millis

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 20:59

Rate this:

0 points

Kahina, in this day of 24-hour rolling news and t'interwebby, no printed newspaper, and especially not a weekly one, can expect to be a journal of record -- that is, recording everything that goes on as in days gone by.
FWIW, the JC's website is quite navigable, where the main stories are on the home page.


Yoni1

Fri, 12/31/2010 - 21:00

Rate this:

-1 points

Probably designed by Quarterdick.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 06:19

Rate this:

-2 points

Or Milligramsam...


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 06:32

Rate this:

-3 points

Utter drivel is to tell other what is the law when one doesn't know anything about it.
So, if Katzav appeals, he will not be guilty anymore until judged again, then he might be cleared of charges, and the stupids who anticipated the final verdict could be accused of libel. Very intelligent indeed. Just as much as Milligramsam.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 08:31

Rate this:

1 point

Jose, take a crash course in reading comprehension, babe. I never said anything that can be interpreted as this:
"if Katzav appeals, he will not be guilty anymore until judged again"
That's a strawman. You do know what a strawman is, don't you? If not, look it up in your Ladybird Book of Simple Explanations for Tiny Tots, or ask your mummy to read it to you.
The way it really goes is like this: IF he appeals, and IF his appeal succeeds, THEN he will not be guilty anymore.
That's how the law works.
Managed to follow it this time?
Oh, and as to the stupid comment about libel: no, there is no libel involved. At this point in time, HE IS GUILTY (as I said before, but clearly you weren't able to follow it).


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 08:40

Rate this:

-2 points

Well, buddy, that's not what you write, but what I wrote. Too bad you're unable to understand it.
So Katzav IS guilty and if he appeals and IS NOT guilty, then guilty doesn't mean anything at this stage. Understand?

Sleep well and don't try to take the basic law exam until you understand.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 08:43

Rate this:

0 points

It was YOU, mega-moron, who wrote:
"So, if Katzav appeals, he will not be guilty anymore until judged again".
Clearly, you are too stupid to understand what you yourself wrote.
Don't try to teach me law, little boy. I know 100 times more about it than you ever will.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 08:52

Rate this:

-2 points

Yes it was me who wrote it, not you, so your pitiful attempt to make a strwman of it did not work.
Please, you show your ignorance of the law so clearly that it is embarassing.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:15

Rate this:

1 point

So you admit that you wrote this brainless drivel? Thank you!

You wrote:

"if Katzav appeals" = lodges the appeal, which means no more than he is ASKING for the verdict to be overturned;

"he will not be guilty anymore" = lodging the appeals means that he is not guilty, all of a sudden = total and utter brainless nonsense;

"until judged again" (which is not even English, but let's do the best with this that we can) = (he is not guilty) until the new verdict is issued = total and utter brainless nonsense.

A convicted criminal CONTINUES TO BE CONVICTED (GUILTY) DURING THE APPEAL. Anyone, like you, who thinks that at this stage "he will not be guilty anymore" is an ignorant moron. He is still guilty, and continues to be guilty, UNTIL (and IF) the appeal court overturns the original sentence (not the verdict, assuming that you understand the difference, which is very doubtful).

That is why a convicted and imprisoned criminal may stay in prison DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS. If "he will not be guilty anymore" during the appeal, then he can't be in prison, my idiotic friend.
He MAY be let out on bail, but only if the judge thinks that (a) his appeal has some merit prima facie, (b) he won't be a danger to the public, (c) he won't interfere with witnesses, (d) he won't try to leave the country; basically, he is going to be a "Good boy Jerusalem".

That is how it works in the Israeli criminal system, which is based on English common law.

Now go and do some reading on the subject, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:18

Rate this:

1 point

OK, I was trying to do too much while writing:

" ... and continues to be guilty, UNTIL (and IF) the appeal court overturns the original VERDICT (not the SENTENCE ..." - sorry for the typo.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:37

Rate this:

-1 points

Please, don't make a fool of yourself again, it's embarassing!
You proved you couldn't read correctly blaming me for attributing you a sentence I never attributed to anyone but me and showed your understanding of laws are as idiotic as the rest.
It is embarassing to have someone of that caliber on the Zionist side. Please try to be an Israel-basher. That would be a great relief!


Joe Millis

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:38

Rate this:

1 point

Quite right Yoni1. Also is it not true that given the unequivocal nature of the verdict he might not even be granted leave to appeal?


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:40

Rate this:

-1 points

OK, I was trying to do too much while writing:

Thinking and writing is difficult, for some.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:42

Rate this:

-2 points

Support of Milligramsam is the final proof you needed, Yoni!


Joe Millis

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:43

Rate this:

2 points

Also yoni as you say no prima facie no new evidence. And he was convicted of trying to witness tamper, so there's a threat of that too. If he's granted leave to appeal, he might sit it out in jail as a convicted rapist, etc


Joe Millis

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:44

Rate this:

2 points

But as you say yoni he is a convict until and if it is overturned. Well pointed out. Have a great 2011.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 11:02

Rate this:

-3 points

Of course, the strawman made by Milligramsam and his new friend Yoni is that "convict" does not and never meant "guilty".
As everyone knows, a suspect can be put in jail, that doesn't prove he is guilty but that the severity of the crime he is suspected for requires it. Inoocent people have been put in jail before, and were liberated aftewards with a "sorry, we were wrong!".
Wise people wait until the end of the procedure before saying one is guilty or not.
Obviously, this is not the case for all here.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 15:35

Rate this:

1 point

"As everyone knows, a suspect can be put in jail, that doesn't prove he is guilty but that the severity of the crime he is suspected for requires it"

Katzav isn't a 'suspect'. He has been convicted by the court. Which part of the above is too difficult for you to grasp, thicko?


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 15:37

Rate this:

-1 points

"Thinking and writing is difficult, for some"

The phone went while I was writing, and I lost the thread.
What a dick you are.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 15:38

Rate this:

1 point

"showed your understanding of laws are as idiotic as the rest"

Since you don't understand the difference between a suspect and a convicted criminal, it's you who is the embarrassing idiot, dick.


Joe Millis

Sat, 01/01/2011 - 22:07

Rate this:

1 point

I see, Jenni, that there are still some Tzaddikim in Sodom. Rabbi Yuval Sherlo has written in kipah about how the guilty verdict and the whole sorry affair shows the need for women to stand up to men who abuse their positions of power.
Also on this excellent site, kipa Rabbi Chaim Levanon takes those to task who believe that halachically, the court has no standing and therefore Katsav should never have stood trial. Rabbi Levanon says that acording to the Halacha, the state has "every right to deal with criminals, especially if halachic criminal justice isn't working in the state." (My translation) That means that since the state isn't an halachic one, the state has every right to prosecute criminals.
This comes in the wake of Katsav's son, Ariel, saying that since there were no two witnesses present at the time of the crime, as required by halacha, therefore the verdict has no justification under Jewish law. Two witnesses, eh? That would make them accessories if they didn't attempt to stop the rape and harassment under proper law.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 01/02/2011 - 04:12

Rate this:

-2 points

Ahhh, Yoni, not only you have cognition troubles but you got the Mick Davis Award on this blog! ;)


Yoni1

Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:16

Rate this:

0 points

The only one exhibiting cognitive issues is you, ignorant and moronic tosser.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:21

Rate this:

-2 points

Please, Yoni, that's embarrassing for your mother!


Joe Millis

Sun, 01/02/2011 - 21:48

Rate this:

1 point

Anyway, all this talk about appeals looks quite academic since according to this report on NaNa (which covers for Israel Chanel 10 News), he hasn't the will or the money to go another round.
Probably realises the game's up.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 01/02/2011 - 21:53

Rate this:

-1 points

Probably realises the game's up.

Is that a reason to say "game over" before you know?


Joe Millis

Sun, 01/02/2011 - 21:55

Rate this:

0 points

Another apparent Tzaddik in the Orthodox Sodom is Arye Deri (I say that almost tongue in cheek), since he warned Shas not to vote for Katsav in the Knesset vote for the presidency. Had Shas not voted for Katsav, Israel would have been spared the embarrassment of him being president (although it was bad enough he was actually a minister).


Yoni1

Mon, 01/03/2011 - 18:27

Rate this:

1 point

"Please, Yoni, that's embarrassing for your mother!"

Leave my mother out of it, you brainless dick.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS