Bells
Staff member
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was found guilty of "rape by deception" by the Israeli court and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
According to the complaint filed by the woman, the two met in a Jerusalem street in 2008 and had sex that day.
When she discovered he was not Jewish, but an Arab, she went to the police.
Kashur was arrested and charged with rape and indecent assault, but the charges were later replaced by a different charge of "rape by deception"
(Source)
Now, apparently Kashur was originally charged with having brutally raped her. But those charges were later dropped when the DA found that the sex had been consensual. So they took a different route..
Aladdin described his client's liaison in more detail: "There was a short foreplay a few minutes before; during the foreplay, the guy tells a few lies, the lady tells a few lies. They both have one goal, and that is to go to bed together. After the sexual intercourse, which was totally consensual, the lady decides to claim that the guy raped her brutally. She comes to court and testifies that this was a case of rape in which there was the use of force.
"At this stage, the defense decides to make an independent investigation. The investigation came up with new facts upon which the D.A. [district attorney] decides to give up the claim the sex was not consensual. So both sides agreed that the sexual intercourse was consensual. However, the D.A. still wanted to charge him with rape by deception.
(Source)
Now, one has to wonder how they came up with the charge itself. After all, going from rape and indecent assault to rape by deception is a bit of a an interesting leap. The judge involved in the case puts it quite bluntly:
In the court's ruling the judge, Zvi Segal, wrote: "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, she would not have co-operated.
"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls."
(Source)
Hmmm.. Because meeting a guy on the street and then agreeing to have sex with him in an abandoned building is really showing an interest in a serious relationship.
Basically what "Dudu" did was to meet a woman on the street, she apparently approached him, and after a few minutes talking (where he tells her he's single and does not inform her that he is an Arab), they decide to have sex and find a private spot and have said sex. Now, about a month or so later, Dudu is contacted by the police on the suspicion that he raped and indecently assaulted the woman involved. He was then placed under house arrest for 2 years. During this time, they found that the rape was consensual, but instead of dropping the charges, they charged him with rape by deception. The judges agreed..
Gideon Levy looks at the root cause behind the charge and the verdict.
In a country where Arabs have to pretend to not be Arab, he discusses how many Arabs adopt nicknames that allows them to blend in, to not draw attention to themselves and their ethnicity. Something that civil rights lawyer Leah Samael is also interested in. But why is this case so bizarre? Rape by deception? I mean we're not talking about a doctor who tells his patients that their only cure is sex and then proceeds to have sex with them. "Dudu" is apparently a Jewish nickname for "David". But Sabbar Kashur's nickname is also "Dudu" and that is how he introduced himself to the woman involved.
No longer a youth, Sabbar/Dudu worked as a deliveryman for a lawyer's office, rode his scooter around Jerusalem and delivered documents, affidavits and sworn testimonies, swearing to everyone that he was Dudu. Two years ago he met a woman by chance. Nice to meet you, my name is Dudu. He claims that she came on to him, but let's leave the details aside. Soon enough they went where they went and what happened happened, all by consent of the parties concerned. One fine day, a month and a half after an afternoon quickie, he was summoned to the police on suspicion of rape.
His temporary lover discovered that her Dudu wasn't a Dudu after all, that the Jew is (gasp! ) an Arab, and so she filed a complaint against the impostor. Her body was violated by an Arab. From then on Kashur was placed under house arrest for two years, an electronic cuff on his ankle. This week his sentence was pronounced: 18 months in jail.
Judge Zvi Segal waxed dramatic to the point of absurdity: "It is incumbent on the court to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth, sweet-talking offenders who can mislead naive victims into paying an unbearable price: the sanctity of their bodies and souls." Sophisticated offenders? It is doubtful that Dudu even knew he was one. Sweet talk? He says that even his wife calls him Dudu.
The court relied, as usual, on precedents: the man who posed as a senior Housing Ministry official and promised his lover an apartment and an increased National Insurance pension, and the man who posed as a wealthy neurosurgeon who promised free medical care and other perks. Dudu had nothing to offer but his good name, Dudu, and still his fate was sealed, just like those who promise apartments and perks. Not only fraud, but rape, almost like the convicted serial rapist Benny Sela.
But because he is an Arab, this case takes on an interesting dimension. One steeped in racism - harking back to the days of black men being accused of rape for having sex with a white woman:
In tune with the public, Kashur's judges assumed, rightly, that the woman would not have gotten into bed with Dudu were it not for the identity he invented. She also might not have gotten into bed with him if he had told her in vain that he was available, that he was younger than he really is or even that he is madly in love with her. But people are not prosecuted for that, certainly not on rape charges.
Now the respected judges have to be asked: If the man was really Dudu posing as Sabbar, a Jew pretending to be an Arab so he could sleep with an Arab woman, would he then be convicted of rape? And do the eminent judges understand the social and racist meaning of their florid verdict? Don't they realize that their verdict has the uncomfortable smell of racial purity, of "don't touch our daughters"? That it expresses the yearning of the extensive segments of society that would like to ban sexual relations between Arabs and Jews?
The court cited precedents of a man who claimed to be a housing official and received sexual favours for housing. But this was a one night stand.. met on the street, went to an old building, had sex and went to their respective homes. The sex was consensual. Until she found out he was an Arab.. So what's in a nickname? The danger of this case is that it sets an even more ridiculous precedent. That if a person lies to get someone to sleep with them, they could find themselves charged with rape. Saying "I love you" in the heat of the moment, when you don't love the other, could result in being charged with rape..
But at the heart of the matter is that the court is allowing a charge of rape to stand based on racial identity - in she is saying it was rape because she had sex with an Arab, not a Jew.
Just when you thought it could not get more ridiculous.. it does.