Arab Man Convicted Of 'Rape By Deceit' Speaks Out

“The way the girl behaved, I felt she only wanted to have sex and go. It wasn’t like she was my girlfriend or wife. It’s a girl who after a 10-minute conversation agreed to go up to the roof with me. What was she thinking? That I would invite her for coffee? Based on how she behaved, I thought she just wanted to have sex and say goodbye. I told her I’m going to get something to drink and returning, but I didn’t return. She may have been hurt by this, but I had no intention of humiliating her.”

Paying the price of lies
Arab man convicted of raping Jewish sex partner because he lied to her speaks out
Eti Abramov • Ynet

One of the most prominent features of Sabar Kashour, with the exception of his large puppy eyes, is the presence of a massive wedding ring on his finger. Had this ring been on his finger in September 2008, he might have avoided the entanglement that currently stirs up great emotion among members of Israel’s legal system and human rights group.

Kashour has been convicted on rape only because he told the complainant “I’m single and my name is Dudu,” even though he is Arab and married. This past week he was sentenced to 18 months in prison, a 30-month conditional sentence, and an NIS 10,000 (roughly $2,800) fine, to be paid as compensation to the woman.

The judges’ decision provoked outrage in the Arab community, but also among a large group of Jewish public figures and attorneys. Some said it was a case of paternalism, while others believe the verdict constitutes a new and dangerous definition of rape. Others referred to “Jewish paranoia” and even racism.

Kashour and the complainant were born in July 1980, five days apart. Had they engaged in any kind of actual conversation the day they met, they would have likely discovered this fact and even joked about it. However, only 15 minutes passed from the moment they met to the time they had sex, on the roof of a building in Jerusalem’s Hillel Street.

Sabar, who was 28 at the time, worked as a messenger for a law firm and stopped for a moment to buy something to eat at a convenience store. When he walked out, he saw a woman standing next to his motorcycle. “She started talking to me and told me her name. I said my name was Dudu,” he says.

Why Dudu and not Sabar?

“I’ve been hanging around Jews my entire life, and ever since I was young they told me: ‘Sabar is a difficult name, what other name would you like?’ So I chose Dudu, and it became like my real name. Even my wife calls me that…I was at Jewish homes, I even did Kiddush there. My brother almost married a Jewish woman. I don’t know anyone else like me who is Arab yet so Jewish.”

Kashour and the woman engaged in a brief conversation before proceeding to have sex. He asked how old she was, and she asked about his job and marital status. “You could see the girl was all over me. I don’t remember who said first ‘let’s have sex,’ but it was clear she wanted to,” he says.

When you spoke, did you tell her you’re Jewish?
 
“No, I said I’m Dudu and didn’t explain whether I’m Jewish or Arab. I did say I’m single. I don’t deny this. If I said I was married, perhaps she would not have sex with me.”

However, as it turned out, the woman was not fully honest either. Only during the trial, Kashour’s lawyer at the time discovered information about her past which she sought to hide. The woman’s testimony was also problematic, and as result the indictment was changed from forceful rape to consensual rape. That is, the acts were undertaken with the woman’s consent, but she was deceived.

When it was over did you just get up and leave?

“The way the girl behaved, I felt she only wanted to have sex and go. It wasn’t like she was my girlfriend or wife. It’s a girl who after a 10-minute conversation agreed to go up to the roof with me. What was she thinking? That I would invite her for coffee? Based on how she behaved, I thought she just wanted to have sex and say goodbye. I told her I’m going to get something to drink and returning, but I didn’t return. She may have been hurt by this, but I had no intention of humiliating her.”

The woman said she remained at the site naked and lying on the floor, until she was found by neighbors and taken to hospital. She told the doctors she was raped, yet they did not identify any medical indications of forceful sex. Two days later, she filed an official police complaint.

Kashour says that about a month after their one-time encounter, he noticed the woman’s name in his cell phone and called. “I told her it was Dudu with the motorcycle, and she said ‘ok, when do you want to meet?’ Yet when I kept on calling she didn’t answer. I remember even sending her a text message: ‘Well, when are we meeting?’ At the time I didn’t know she complained that I raped her. Does it sound logical to you that a rapist would call the girl time and again from his own phone?”

Why did you even continue to call her?

“Because I realized she’s the kind of girl you can call anytime you want to have sex with her.

Do you think the verdict seeks to prevent ties between Arab men and Jewish women?
 
“Certainly. People would ask why I agreed to a plea bargain where I confessed to raping her, so it’s important for me to make clear that the only thing I admitted to was that I told her my name is Dudu and that I’m single, that’s it…and you know what, if she cared so much whether I’m Jewish or Arab she could have asked me for an ID before she had sex with me…yet she didn’t do it. If the situation was reverse, a Jewish girl meeting a man who speaks Arabic, and later it turned out he was Jewish and she filed a rape complaint because of it, would they put the Jew in jail? I don’t think so.”

At this time, Kashour’s new lawyer is working on an appeal. “The criminality of the facts described in the indictment is very low, if at all,” he said. “It certainly does not justify prison time.”
 
Kashour hopes his appeal will be accepted, and is considering a civil lawsuit against the complainant later on. For the time being, he too is surprised by the level of support he has received from people in Israel and abroad who openly expressed their objection to the court’s problematic ruling.
 
“The support I received in recent days proved to me that I do belong to this country,” he says. “It’s impossible to make a distinction between a Jew and an Arab when handing out a sentence.”

Full version of story published by Yedioth Ahronoth. 

Related Posts: 1, 2.

Comments

[Dr. Dave]

Shiksas Jewish girls are for practice

[Suchie]

Dr. Dave, how do I do that? Strike through a word online, that is...?

[Forty Eighter]

Dr. Dave

I want to know how I can score with a jewish girl I meet on the street after a two minute conversation.

[dlz]

This verdict is a disgrace yet, unfortunately, not shocking, considering the many other loony decisions the Israeli courts have been producing lately.

[effie]

I'd like to hear the woman's version of what occurred.

[soso]

"What was she thinking? That I would invite her for coffee?"

Strange manners, this guy...

[Barry]

This was not a verdict of the court but rather a plea bargain reached between the prosecution and defense.
The woman claimed that she was date raped that is subjected to sex BY FORCE against her consent. The fact that she joined the man on the roof is evidence that she may have wanted 'respectful loving boyfriend/girlfriend sex' however she claims the man forced 'rough sex' on her after she told him to get off her. Such a claim if true is rape.
In a date rape cases, the man will deny that he had rough sex claiming the sex was 'normal' and that the woman consented to that sex. It therefore becomes a matter of the woman's word against the man. Who is more credible? If both parties are as credible as each other than no prosecution can succeed because the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
The unusual aspect in this case is that the woman claimed the man lied about his identity. If that claim is true it supports (but not conclusively) the notion that the alleged rape was premeditated. Rapists do not leave calling cards. Lying about identity is not like lying about earnings. This lie MAY be made with the purpose of making it impossible not only for the woman to trace the man, but for the police to trace the man.
The police will have put the claim of masking identity to the man probably expecting him to deny it (since they could not have had any evidence of what was said before sex just as there was no evidence of lack of consent other than the woman's word). Extraordinarily and unexpectedly he admitted lying about his identity when he did not have to made that admission. As soon as he did this he damaged his own credibility by admitting he was a liar and had sought to mask his identity. In such a case the man's and woman's credibility are no longer of equal weight. The man has made himself open by his own admission freely made, to being prosecuted for the forcible rape alleged by the woman. The man's lie has made the prosecution's case easier. The man's counsel in such a case will tell him that whilst normally in a date rape case, he always advises the man to plead not guilty, it would be dangerous for him to do so because he has damaged his credibility and might get convicted depending on how the woman comes over. The defense counsel would however not advise the man to plead guilty because he suspects that the prosecution may have worries about how the woman will come across. The result of a prosecution for forcible rape in such a case is just too difficult to call. The defense counsel will suggest a third alternative to pleading guilty or not guilty and that is to open negotiations with the prosecution suggesting that whilst the man will not be prepared to plead guilty to forcible rape he would be prepared to plead guilty rape by deception which carries a lower sentence. This is a typical plea bargain where a legal fiction that something lesser occurred to avoid the need to prove or disprove that something greater occurred.
Read the reports carefully. This was a plea bargain. The man pleaded guilty to rape by deception so as to avoid the risk of being convicted for forcible rape. The woman may not have not wanted that outcome. She may have been prepared to testify to forcible rape but the prosecution and defense between them took it out of her hands.
Gideon Levy of Haaretz then comes along and tries to make a political issue of a sordid date rape case just taking the man's claim at face value (without regard to the woman's claim that she was forcibly raped) and ignoring that the man CHOSE OF HIS OWN VOLITION to enter into a plea bargain, even suggesting that since the Nuremberg Laws made it punishable for Germans to have sex with Jewish women (including rape) and it is a good thing to be against the Nuremberg Laws, then clearly the Israeli courts must not prevent sex between Arabs and Jews (including sex by rape). He should be ashamed of himself. He knows why people enter into plea bargains are usually guilty of worse crimes than that they pleaded guilty to, but chooses to ignore that for the purpose of making some point about how the law should not protect Jewish women who refuse to consent to sex with Arab men since their reasons for doing so may be racist.

[Dr. Dave]

Dr. Dave, how do I do that? Strike through a word online, that is...?

Suchie - you use the "s" and "/s" tags each enclosed in carets <>

Dr. Dave

I want to know how I can score with a jewish girl I meet on the street after a two minute conversation.

Forty Eighter - you pull a Jerry Maguire and show her the money

[Schmorgel]

just practicing please ignore or delete this comment Mr Shmarya

[Mr. Apikoros]

Barry, you disingenous little turd, you're full of crap. What happened was that after they had totally consensual sex, the guy up and left. As far as he was concerned, it was "Ram bam, thank you ma'am." I guess she was looking for love.

So, she lied and claimed she was "raped," and the Israeli prosecutors, who were out to get this guy because he's Palestinian, made him an "offer" he couldn't refuse.

This case reeks. It might have been the norm in the Third Reich, but Israel ain't supposed to be the Third Reich, although it's looking more and more like it every day.

The fact that he lied (by omission) doesn't make him a rapist, by force, by deception, or anything else. It's a presumption of nothing, asshat. Do you really believe that a married man who takes off his wedding band when he's looking to score in a bar in the USA is really a rapist?

[Mr. Apikoros]

"I want to know how I can score with a jewish girl I meet on the street after a two minute conversation."

Give her a good stock tip.

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

Thank you Barry for the thorough and fascinating explanation

[Ben]

I'm half-Jewish. That ought to be worth at least a hand job from this woman.

[just me]

"The woman claimed that she was date raped that is subjected to sex BY FORCE against her consent. The fact that she joined the man on the roof is evidence that she may have wanted 'respectful loving boyfriend/girlfriend sex' however she claims the man forced 'rough sex' on her after she told him to get off her. Such a claim if true is rape."

where did you read this barry? none of the news stories say this. they are claiming it was rape because he deceived her and she allegedly would not have had sex w/his had she known he was arab. there was nothing in there about 'rough sex'. The fact that she joined the man on the roof is certainly not evidence she may have wanted 'respectful sex'. nobody is this stupid. this is completely absurd.

[A E ANDERSON]

This is the silliest crock of shit I've ever heard: a woman can after the fact conclusively and unilaterally deem consensual sex to be rape because of the quality of the sex? Is wasn't "loving" enough for her?

So now, we have to waste expensive time of public servants who have to launch post-modern, existential, psychoanalytic investigations as to when sex is rape depending on the quality of the woman's consent at any particular point in the act.

I say we go back to the good old days when the law let the woman do the talking with her feet: i.e., woman stays, undresses, spreads legs = consent. How much more consent does anybody need than a naked woman, legs splayed, moaning "do me!," or the rooftop equivalent of lifting her dress and exposing her booty?

"Oh, I was just showing off my Brazilian, Officer. I didn't want him to stick his thing in!"

GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE!

[A E ANDERSON]

Besides, how much "loving sex" do you get in an ad hoc rooftop assignation between two people who just met on the street and don't know each other's surnames?

Sex on rooftop is like sex in an alleyway: it's lewd, rude, dirty and naughty, the polar opposite of a bridal suite, or a bed strewn with roses. It's on par with up against a wall: this is not the locus of loving, boyfriend-girlfriend sex. It's furtive f--king, pure and simple.

And how this idiot Israeli judge could conclude otherwise simply amazes.

[Suchie]

I don't think it worked, Dr. Dave. I must be lame; Schmorgel figured it out.

[Radical Feminist]

I'd like to hear the woman's version of what occurred.

[flailed]

hmm

[flailed]

Seems you can also type it in word with strikethroughs and then cut and paste it into here. If only we couldo that with our actions, thistory wouldn’t be here.

[flailed]

oish. strike what i said. i just got it.

[soso]

Hey, guys, you forget that this guy comes over as total asshole in this article.

"What was she thinking? That I would invite her for coffee? Based on how she behaved, I thought she just wanted to have sex and say goodbye. I told her I’m going to get something to drink and returning, but I didn’t return."

This leaves indeed room for the assumption that a date-rape took place.

And the explanation that rape was too difficult to prove and the victim preferred a plea-bargain also makes sense to me (if it was indeed a plea-bargain).

Of course, it is not a good idea to hinge the plea-bargain on the fact that the man was arab and did not say so.

It would have been preferrable to stress the fact that he claimed he was single while he was married.

[Dr. Dave]

Oy. Next time I'll keep my stupid HTML tags to myself.

[MR]

This is a very scary precedent. Now, any man who lies online in JDate, or who tells a woman in a bar that they are wealthier, more refined, single, etc., and then has sex can be potentially convicted.

Welcome to the brave new feminist world of Israeli jurisprudence. Lying, by act or omission should not equal rape. To equate it with rape essentially says that the woman is not at fault for her own skanky behavior and lack of prudence in making sure that this sex partner met her very vague "standards." Both men and women should protect themselves from their own stupidity. This precedent is demeaning to the intelligence of both sexes, and sets a very dangerous rule.

[soso]

"sets a very dangerous rule"

Why? why should people who gain sex through a lie not be put into jail.

If it is generalised, and not racist,I think it is perfectly OK.

[suck my dick]

castrate this fucking muslim.

[Barry]

No Mr Apikorus, it is the woman's assertion that she was forcefully raped that is the evidence of rape. That is why you habitually sodomize infants and farmyard animals as they cannot testify what you a filthy rapist you are. Obviously you wish a woman's testament that she was raped to hold no evidential weight whatsoever so you can rape her at will, however I see my duty to stop you, you disgusting little pervert.

The Guardian reported that the man was originally charged with both (forceable) rape and indecent assault but agreed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of rape by deceit. If Israel was so racist as claimed, then why did the prosecution not persist with the claim for forceable rape if it knew that the judge would never believe an Arab but accept his offer to plea to the lesser offense?

[Yoel Mechanic]

There's a general libertarian concept: there are some things that may be wrong (and even wrong in an absolute sense) but are outside the purview of the government. That being said, another point: The Israel we know of today, is a very new state built from a very old nation. The Jewish people are not new, but the state formed still needs to make a constitution and define what sort of government it will be. Therefore these quirky and inconsistent rulings are to be expected (and probably have nothing to do with racism). I know that Manhigut Yedudit (headed by Moshe Feiglin) is interested in educational programs to lead to the eventual formation of a democratic constitution (something sorely needed in Israel) You also need a public that is culturally in tune with democracy (education needed there too)

[Mr. Apikoros]

Barry, there are laws against libel. And you just broke a bunch of them, and it'll cost you.

[Barry]

MR Apikorus, it seems you are as big an expert on the laws of libel as you are on rape.

Lets reach a compromise, I will withdraw my claim that you rape children, whilst you will admit that you only sodomize kosher farm animals that act slutty and have it coming to them and in so far as you have ever sodomized a non-kosher animal it was because it misled you into thinking it was kosher.

Does that seem fair, you turd?

[Mr. Apikoros]

Yeah, Barry. You sure are an expert on libel law.

Here are a few basics:

1. Am I a child molester?
2. Am I a rapist?
3. Do I sodomize animals?

If you have proof of any of the above, putz, then you win your case because truth is an absolute defense in a libel case.

If, on the other hand, you don't have proof, and I kind of doubt it because you don't even know my real name, you've lost. And you don't have to know my real name. All I have to do is show that my feelings were hurt by your scurrilous allegations, and you're going down.

Capice, asswipe?

[Shmarya]

A pseudonym cannot be libeled unless that pseudonym is a well known entity (like an author's pen name) or the pseudonym is associated with an identifiable real person, even if that person's real name is unknown.

You use Mr. Apikous to hide your real identity and no one here knows what that real identity is.

Mr. Apikorus is not a well known entity. Damage to it cannot be quantified under the law because Mr. Apikorus does not exist and is not tied to an identifiable person who does.

For example, being labeled a moron here is not actionable because no damage has been done to you.

You can still get loan, you can still buy house, you can still be hired, you can still teach, you can still buy and still BMWs,etc.

That is because the pseudonym Mr. Apikorus is not tied to you, and the pseudonym Mr. Apikorus has no commercial or other value.

[Mr. Apikoros]

Once again you are wrong. While Mr. Apikoros can't be libeled, but the person who uses the pseudonym can.

Let's suppose I decided to use my real name here, and identified myself as Mr. Apikoros. That is my right, and the fact that "Barry" libeled me by calling me a child molester has a chilling effect upon me using my real name. That makes him liable right there.

Suppose somebody here outed me. Again, under your theory of libel, Barry would suddenly become liable because my real name is known.

There was a case in NY, quite recently, in which a woman using a screen name posted nasty things about another woman, also using a pseudonym. These were pretty scurrilous, but she didn't accuse the woman of felonious behavior, as Barry did. A judge has allowed a libel suit to proceed.

It would be pretty hard to sue someone for calling him an "asshole," a "fag," or other pejoratives. That's because these pejoratives are opinions. On the other hand, calling someone a child molester goes well beyond that.

And the person behind Mr. A. can also sue for mental anguish, even if no damage to his reputation was done.

[Mr. Apikoros]

BTW, I have two BMWs. My 3-series, which has long been paid in full, is up for sale. Wanna buy it? 77,000 miles, clean.

Nothing wrong with the car, I just want a new 3, and you'll get a better deal than if you bought one from a dealer.

[Shmarya]

Let's suppose I decided to use my real name here, and identified myself as Mr. Apikoros. That is my right, and the fact that "Barry" libeled me by calling me a child molester has a chilling effect upon me using my real name. That makes him liable right there.

You haven't used your real name ever, and you've posted here for years. You'd have a very difficult time proving libel.

Suppose somebody here outed me. Again, under your theory of libel, Barry would suddenly become liable because my real name is known.

That's an interesting point. I suppose if someone did out you you might have grounds to sue for libel – although you might have to sue the person who outed you rather than the person who previous to that called your pseudonym 'child molester."

And the person behind Mr. A. can also sue for mental anguish, even if no damage to his reputation was done.

Not unless there is an affirmative connection between Mr. Apikorus and you, meaning your physical likeness is associated with the Mr. Apikorus or Mr. Apikorus is a known entity as I described above.

[Anon]

Barry,

Insightful comment. I have to ask though how her calling him on the phone fits into your story. They should be able to check that easily and, if true, he clearly wasn't trying very hard to stay anonymous.

[R]

I don't believe the man in the story and it has nothing to do with him being an arab.

[Mr. Apikoros]

Check the court cases on this subject. I did, for reasons having nothing to do with this blog (or for that matter, me personally).

You're confusing damages with libel. There's no question Barry libeled me (unless you believe I sodomize farm animals, etc.). The issue is how much I could collect in damages, and whether it would be worth the time and effort to do so, and the real possibility that I'd spend $25,000 to collect damages of $1.

As for someone outing me here, that person wouldn't be libeling me (unless he also said he had non-consensual sex with farm animals). Maybe -- and there's a big if here -- invasion of privacy. A jury could easily say that if one posts on a blog using a screenname, one assumes the risk of being outed.

[Seraphya]

While mentioning these laws, lets focus on the laws of rape. I know in Australia this is an open and closed case of rape. Any first year law student knows this.
It isn't opening up some new crazy world. If you lie about your identity it is rape. Interestingly enough if the woman gives consent to sex with a condom but a condom isn't used it isn't rape, but if you claim to be a Tom Cruise (and aren't), then it is rape. That is just the way the law works.
Martial rape didn't used to be recognized, in some countries men still can't legally be raped by a woman.
It is just the way the law works.

[Mr. Apikoros]

So if a guy porked a Jewish girl, and didn't fess up to being a shaygetz, he could be charged with rape in Australia?

Complete and utter bullshit.