The rape of "B" and the media lynch that followed


By Miriam Shaviv
September 7, 2010
Share

This summer, both the Israeli media and the international media went beserk covering a case in which an Arab man was convicted of "rape by deception" - in this case, having sex with a woman after masquerading as a Jew (two men were previously convicted of the same crime, however they had misrepresented their socioeconomic status). The Israeli legal system, concluded pretty much everyone, was racist.

Well, you probably haven't noticed that the real version of events was somewhat different to the one presented by the media last month. You wouldn't have noticed because, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no mainstream media outlet that has covered the new evidence that has emerged in the last few days; even in Israel, Ha'aretz, which broke the development, has only run its report in Hebrew (a bizarre editorial decision, considering how much attention the case received overseas).

Last week, in short, the testimony of the victim was finally released, following a petition by a local Tel Aviv paper, and with it, a fuller version of events has emerged.

The victim, "B", was a highly vulnerable woman, who had been repeatedly raped by her father, and forced by him into prostitution. At the time of the rape episode, she was staying in a women's shelter following another rape by her father.

According to her testimony, this was not consensual sex which she only got upset about once she realised her partner, Sabbar Kashur, was an Arab (as was claimed across the world); it was a real rape. Here is the full excerpt from Ha'aretz, which you should read in full (translation courtesy of Elizabeth):

On that morning, September 3, 2008, B. left with the director of the shelter, a social worker and another friend who stayed at the shelter to a meeting in Galgal, a crisis center for homeless youth. After the meeting the three left to another location. B. recounts: “I walked toward Zion Square and then sat by a Cellcom store at 13 Ben Hillel street… I sat on the rocks under a tree and listened to (music; LG) on my MP4.” Then, B. says, a guy she didn’t know appeared, riding a moped. In the interviews conducted with him later, Kashur said that he arrived there to shop at a near-by store. “He drove behind my back toward me”, continued B. in a broken language that characterized her whole testimony... “and he stopped few meters from me, like only a little far from me. He called me, like, to come to him, and I told him that he should come to me… we talked for about seven, ten minutes before the incident happened”.

At this point occurred the dialogue that was later used as the basis for the charge of deception against Kashur. “At first he told me his name was Daniel (and not Dudu, the nickname his friends use, as Kashur claimed in interviews; LG)… he didn’t want to tell me his last name… after a few minutes he like said ‘Cohen’”. B. also said that “he asked me if I have a boyfriend and I said no, and then he asked me if I want to be his girlfriend. I asked him if he’s married, and he said no, and then I asked him if he has children and he told me he doesn’t have children.” Later in that conversation, according to the testimony, Kashur asked B. for a kiss. “He wanted me to give him a kiss on the cheek and then he gave one back”. According to B., they also exchanged phone number.

At this point, according to the testimony, Kashur invited B. to see where he works, supposedly in the building at 13 Ben Hillel Street, outside of which they were standing. “He said he wanted to invite me for coffee and show me his workplace there”, said B. The reason she gave for agreeing to leave with an almost complete stranger was “I looked for someone to put my trust in… I know that strangers, you even don’t contact them… but because I was like, as you know, when I told you that I came from a place where there’s no, I lived on the streets for a while too… I thought that if I am with him, I’ll feel safe, and I’ll have, I’ll be financially secured. I really like trusted him.”

Right after they entered the building, B. claims, Kashur began forcing himself on her. “We were in the staircase, like in the first stairs of the building, where we entered and then he asked for a hug… so I hugged him because he said that he wants a hug for warmth and love because he didn’t have a relationship in a while, like a girlfriend… and when I felt that he was too clingy, I tried pushing him away, so he used force a little like, got a little aggressive.” According to B., Kashur wouldn’t let go. “He lifted my shirt and the bra and kissed my chest”, she said. But then, a blond woman entered the stairwell, and Kashur stopped. He decided to move from the stairs to the elevator. “When I was with him in the elevator he also touched me and started acting like some psychopath. I was so scared of him… I started sensing that something strange was happening, because I noticed that I wasn’t going to any workplace and I don’t see any coffee cups, and I don’t, then I began to panic and started like, I also screamed when it started happening.”

When they left the elevator on the top floor of the building, according to B., Kashur took her to the stairwell that led to the attic. There, according to her, he raped her. “We took off my pants and underwear”, described B., “and all of this was done with force, I didn’t agree to anything… I was left in just my shirt. Then he took off his clothes… then he put saliva on his penis and then, it was like full penetration, like, it wasn’t with consent as he claims. He laid me on the floor… and asked to kiss my chest too and then like when I asked that he stops and tried to push him away, he started pressuring me with his arms forcefully on me… when I tried to push him with my hand in his stomach, this happened in a more advanced stage, when he was already inside of me, then he said that if I don’t stay silent and I don’t resist, then it would like end faster and it wouldn’t be like, he wouldn’t use force. I still resisted him and it was forced.”

According to the testimony, after Kashur climaxed, he stayed lying on top of B. for a while. After that, he got up and left, leaving her half naked. “Then (Kashur; LG) just disappeared and took my MP4…”, she claimed, “and I ask that he return it to me because it is in his house.” Left alone in the stairwell, B. began to weep. “I was really hysterical”, she said. At this point she also noticed that she was bleeding out of her vagina and panicked even more. After a few minutes her brother happened to call and she asked him to call her caregiver. The caregiver quickly contacted B. who told her about what happened. “She told me not to freak out and call MADA [an ambulance – E]”, B. recounted the conversation following which Yasam [Special Patrol Unit – E] policemen arrived at the scene and found B. up the stairwell. “The Yasam (arrived; LG) before MADA”, says B., “when they arrived I was… I wasn’t wearing pants, like stayed this way, because I was in shock. The floor was dirty with blood and I was really afraid of touching myself to see if I’m alright, I was really frightened.” After this the MADA crews arrived as well. According to her testimony, in the examination in the Shaarei Tzedek Hospital scratch marks were found on her body, which were documented in the Prosecution’s file.

Following this incident, "B" was hospitalised in a mental hospital which has a section for women victims of sexual crimes. She was apparently not even aware that the man was an Arab until police proceedings had already begun.

Kashur was originally charged with rape and sexual assault - nothing to do with deception. However, in order to prevent a long cross-examination of the clearly traumatised "B" on the stand, the prosecution eventually negotiated a plea deal with the defence, who agreed that the charge would be changed to "rape by deception". While this carried a less severe penalty, it ensured that Kashur was convicted and reduced the trauma for "B".

By using this plea, in other words, Kashur got a lighter sentence than he would have otherwise. However, it allowed him to present himself as the victim of the justice system - as an Arab being punished for having sex with a Jew, rather than as a man being punished for raping a woman. And the media - completely ignoring the (admittedly technical and dry) protestations from the court system - swallowed the story whole.

So what do we learn from this? That some cliches are true.

First of all, a lie can get halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on. It has taken months for the real story to emerge, although it sounded bizarre right from the beginning, and now it has no chance.

Second, as far as most of the media is concerned, why ruin a good story with the facts? The disgrace is that none of the international outlets which blasted Israel for its "racist" court system have bothered revisiting this story now that additional evidence is out. No one is interested in the truth. They were only interested in scandal, particularly where Israel was concerned; everyone was willing to believe that the Israeli justice system was unjust, because it fitted into an established and popular narrative.

The local Israeli media gets even less credit. They were in a better position than the international media to properly investigate this shocking story, but the tale of a loose, racist Israeli Jewess was too good for them to pass up as well. Now they are, on the whole, also ignoring the truth, allowing even the Israeli public to believe the worst about their own justice system.

It will be really instructive to see, over the coming week or so, how many media outlets do take their journalistic responsibilities seriously and correct their original stories.

COMMENTS

Macairt

7 September, 2010 - 19:14

Rate this:

0 points

What is appalling is that for a non-Muslim, especially a Jew, to have sexual relations with a Muslim woman in most Arab or Islamic states really is a crime, sometimes met with death, officially or unofficially.


Jonathan Hoffman

7 September, 2010 - 20:43

Rate this:

0 points

Andrew Sullivan - You have an obligation to correct the record!

But it's the visceral emotional core of this that is so offensive. It's about racism, religion and the risk of miscegenation. It's about the deep disgust of some Israeli Jews toward Arabs, upheld by the courts. It's a variant of the racial sexual panics of the Jim Crow South.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/rapebydecep...


mattpryor

7 September, 2010 - 21:21

Rate this:

0 points

I will make sure as many people as possible know about this. Thank you Miriam for reporting it.


DLeigh-Ellis

8 September, 2010 - 17:56

Rate this:

0 points

It is a very interesting turn of events... Hopefully it will go someway to overturning the notion that Israel's courts are institutionally racist. So far The Guardian seems to have picked up the story, on the front page at the moment...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/08/rape-by-deception-plea-israe...


mattpryor

9 September, 2010 - 10:54

Rate this:

0 points

At least the Guardian are running the updated version of events. That doesn't excuse the way it was treated in the first place - slag off Israel first, ask questions later.

Now perhaps they will apologise for the way it was initially covered.


yankeeuxb

10 September, 2010 - 12:18

Rate this:

0 points

'No one is interested in the truth.'

But following the massacre of the Turkish aid activists and the doctoring of the IDF video and 'voice recordings', no indignation was felt by all of the above once it was established that they were was fake. Neither was any indignation expressed when it was clear that no weapons of any kind were found on the aid ships - despite claims to the contrary by the IDF.

'Now perhaps they will apologise for the way it was initially covered.'

(strangely, no indignation is expressed by the above expressed against the fact that this woman was raped by her father. By an Arab - it's revolting. By her father? silence)

Israel is an apartheid country. One only has to look at, for example, spending on education. Jewish students receive three times as much per head in expenditure than Arab students. That is simple Apartheid.


stephenb

11 September, 2010 - 20:51

Rate this:

0 points

Erm scuse me...am I understanding this correctly....the guy raped the woman and to spare her the trauma of giving evidence there was a plea bargain whereby the defence agreed to accept a charge of " rape by deception " instead of a charge of rape as we all commonly understand it.

Please tell me you are winding me up.


happygoldfish

11 September, 2010 - 21:36

Rate this:

0 points

stephenb, that is an over-simplification …

the plea-bargain was not to "spare her the trauma of giving evidence", but to spare her the trauma of giving evidence again

owing to what appears to have been incompetence by the prosecution, the victim gave full evidence, including cross-examination, and then the prosecution gave the defence details which they should have supplied before

from elizabeth (israel)'s blog

The plea bargain: “The testimony would be traumatic”

Over the years B. filed 14 complaints, most of them for sexual offenses, against her father and other men. Some of the complaints were found to be justified, the defendants confessed and were sent to prison. Other complaints didn’t result in indictments, sometimes due to lack of evidence, and sometimes because B.’s testimony was doubted. When B. was first put on the stand in Kashur’s trial, the defense didn’t have all the 14 cases, but only a short list with the details of the cases, without all the evidence. Therefore, A’ladin applied to receive the cases following B.’s testimony. A’ladin’s intention was to put B. back on the stand and question her about the details of the cases where she was found to be unreliable – in order to discredit her in this case as well.

The Deputy Prosecutor Wittman did not like the idea of putting B. back on the stand. The previous time was, as mentioned, nothing less than traumatic, and B. was not interested in it herself. “We thought that the defense attorney’s request to question the plaintiff again about those past complaints, some of which didn’t lead to indictments, was legitimate”, Wittman explained to HaIr, “therefore, we faced a dilemma whether to expose the plaintiff once against to the cross-examination of the defense attorney over these complaints, which would inevitably lead to another traumatic experience for the plaintiff, or reach a plea bargain, as the defense attorney suggested.”

the trauma of giving evidence once is bad enough, and if the victim refused to return to court, the judge would probably have ruled her evidence inadmissible, and dismissed the case …

the prosecutor seems to have been desperate to avoid this (which would have been entirely the prosecutor's fault), and so came to a rather unusual plea-bargain, which does not (in relation to sentence) even seem to have been properly recorded in writing


stephenb

12 September, 2010 - 08:48

Rate this:

0 points

I guess there really might be fairies at the bottom of my garden after all


Melchett Mike

12 September, 2010 - 09:10

Rate this:

0 points

mattpryor

17 September, 2010 - 15:02

Rate this:

0 points

Incidentally the BBC has just decided to pick this up, see what you think of their coverage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11329429

Isn't it interesting that in a rape case they decided to give publicity and interviews to the rapist so that he could smear the victim and claim victimhood himself?

DISGUSTING.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.