Dutch queen asks Liberal leader to form cabinet

AMSTERDAM Oct 7 (Reuters) - Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands on Thursday asked Liberal leader Mark Rutte to form a cabinet, the Dutch news agency ANP reported.

Rutte will head a centre-right coalition with the Christian Democrat party, supported in parliament by the anti-Islam Freedom Party of Geert Wilders.

It will be the first post-war minority government and Rutte will be the first Liberal prime minister since 1918.

The government aims to cut the budget by 18 billion euros ($25 billion) and get the state deficit to within European Union limits by 2013. It also aims to ban face-covering veils such as the burqa and to make immigration rules stricter.

Political analysts see only a small chance of this government serving a full four-year term.

via islamizationwatch.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Rape by deception case was really Deception by Media case [updated with Volkh Conspiracy Analysis]

 Here is what a twittering Blonde Republican with a picture of Sean Hannity wrote on her blog....

[update]...and she is trying to obscure the fact that this story was originally from her site. [check tweet]

here is her post: mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com

Lying for sex means jail time in Isreal

A Palestinian man is facing an 18 month jail sentence for ‘rape by deception’ for lying to a woman about being Jewish, single, and looking for a long term relationship. The woman claims that otherwise she wouldn’t have had sex with him- in an office building stairwell 30 minutes after they met! Really? [source]
Clearly this upstanding woman was taken advantage of… isn’t she lucky that the law in Israel protects her from these vicious lies? Ug.
Imagine if a similar law existed in the US… It would definitely change the dating scene across the country.

Labels: Israel, Palestinian, sex laws

via mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com

this is the worst and lowest story the AP has ever been accused of distorting. If this isn't a wakeup call for women's groups to start protecting Jews... I don't know what is. I am not a feminist... and this is one of the reasons why. Where was the interest in this woman's dignity? The attempt to turn this story into an equality issue is pathetic. Jews need their own Republic not only to protect themselves from the Holocaust, but to protect themselves from a system that orchestrates prejudice in the name of equality.

In July, this story became pretty big - here's the AP version, but it was all over the media:

Lying for sex. It happens all the time.
Yet a married Palestinian man has been ordered jailed for 18 months for having sex with an Israeli woman after giving her the impression he too was Jewish, as well as single and interested in a relationship.
His conviction of "rape by deception" has drawn charges of racism and questions about whether courts should be delving into this fraught topic.
Saber Qashor, a 30-year-old father of two, says he was approached by the woman in September 2008 on a downtown Jerusalem street where he had parked his motorcycle, and introduced himself as "Dudu," a common Israeli Jewish nickname.
Within half an hour they were having sex in a Jerusalem office building stairwell.
After nearly two months, he was arrested and told the woman had accused him of forcible rape. Last week, he was sentenced to prison and fined 10,000 shekels ($2,500) for "rape by deception," an offense that may be unique to the Israeli legal code.
"This is a case where it is obviously not rape but fraud, and it smells of racism," said historian and commentator Tom Segev. "It's a real ugly example of how basic values in this country are deteriorating."

All of these articles were written based solely on the Arab man's interview. The victim did not speak to the press. The conclusion was often simple: that Israelis are inherently racist and would never convict an alleged Jewish rapist under such circumstances. For example, Andrew Sullivan (via The Volokh Conspiracy)

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. 

Other examples here.
Now, Ha'aretz (in Hebrew only) found the victim, and her story is completely different.
Elizabeth at MidEast Youth translates and summarizes the belated Ha'aretz investigation; here is her summary:

Last week, Haaretz daily published a long expose on the matter (my full translation below), revealing what was behind the plea agreement. The report shows, that the victim, B., was raped by her father since she was six-years-old, and was later forced into prostitution by him. At the time of the rape, B. was staying in a women’s shelter after another sexual assault by her father. According to B.’s testimony, first revealed in the Haaretz report, after Kashur claimed that he was a Jewish bachelor, he enticed her to come into a stairwell in a Jerusalem building, where he brutally raped her. B. was left bleeding, beaten up and half naked by Kashur.
Following the rape, B. was hospitalized in a mental institution, where she was investigated by the police. The Prosecutor’s office decided to charge Kashur with rape and sexual assault based on B.’s testimony and other evidence. When B. later appeared in Court to give her testimony, which was confused and contradictory at times, she was confronted by the Defense attorney with her past occupation as a prostitute and her father’s abuse and rape from an early age. The court appearance left B. severely traumatized. When the Defense learned that B. previously filed 14 complaints against her father and other men for sexual assault, it asked to cross-examine B. once again about the past complaints, while focusing on a number of them that didn’t result in an indictment and convictions due to contradictions in her story. The Defense planned to use B.’s past complaints to shatter her credibility. Wanting to avoid another traumatizing event, the Prosecution formulated a plea bargain with the Defense that reduced the charges to “rape by deception”. Essentially, using the threat of once again subjecting a vulnerable rape victim to a traumatizing interrogation, the Defense was able to reach a plea agreement with greatly reduced charges, which didn’t correspond with the facts of the incident.
The Israeli media has failed to thoroughly investigate this matter, resulting in widespread victimization of a rapist and mockery of the “gullible” woman. B. was victimized and abused by her surrounding from an early age, and unfortunately, the Israeli and foreign media, pundits and the blogosphere, victimized her once again.

Not only was the victim's pain minimized, but the entire case was looked upon in opinion pieces and blog posts as yet another example of Israeli racism against Arabs, when in fact it was nothing of the sort.
Will we see retractions? Not very likely.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

the prosecution were stupid. Rape by Deception is still Rape. Right? Regardless this is the ugliest story of media abuse on Jews that I have ever heard. The deception however was not that he was a Muslim. The deception was that he led her into a place where she was vulnerable and forced her to have sex.  Where were our good friends in the GOP with pictures on twitter with Sean Hannity? Too busy harassing Debbie Schlussel I suppose

noahdavidsimon's posterous

here is the Volkh Analysis.  I have not finished digesting his opinion myself: 

In late July, I blogged about the Kashur case, in which a defendant was sentenced for “rape by fraud”: According to the stipulated facts in court — the decision was based on a guilty plea — Kashur had sex with a woman with her consent, but she consented because he told her he was a Jewish bachelor; in reality, he was a married Palestinian. (For more on the claimed non-stipulated facts, see David Bernstein’s later post.)
I wasn’t quite satisfied, though, with just reading press accounts, so I asked the UCLA Law Library to have the case translated for me; and then I learned that the case seemed to rest on a past precedent (which didn’t involve a lie about ethnicity), so I asked the library to have that case translated for me as well. That’s now basically done, so I thought I’d pass along an edited version of the two cases — the earlier precedent (Saliman, translated by Elinor Eizdi) and Kashur itself, translated by Ariel Strauss; thanks also to Justin Hellman and Jack Gindi for helping me review the edited translations.
Note that under American law, sex for which consent is procured by a lie is generally a crime only (1) when the fraud relates to the nature of the act (i.e., the defendant claimed he was a doctor who was going to medically examine the woman’s genitals, or perhaps even administer a medical cure by having sex with her), or (2) in some states, when the defendant impersonated the woman’s husband. There was a proposal last year in Massachusetts that would have generally criminalized rape by fraud, and I blogged about it here; but to my knowledge it didn’t go anywhere. And while a few American rape statutes might already criminalize sex procured through false statements (or provide as to crimes generally that “assent does not constitute consent if ... [i]t is induced by force, duress, or deception”), I know of no cases applying those statutes in the typical lying-to-get-sex case. State v. Tizard, 897 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 1994) holds that Tennessee law rejects the distinction between “fraud in the inducement” and “fraud in the fact,” which is what has prevented rape prosecutions in cases such as the Israeli one; the facts of Tizard, though, are rather different — the defendant was lying about the supposed medical reason of the sexual act (there, the defendant’s masturbation of the victim, though the analysis would be the same for intercourse) rather than about the defendant’s identity.
Here then are my edits of the translations of the Israeli cases:
Saliman v. State, Israel Supreme Court (2008)
[Defendant approached several women claiming to be a Housing Department official who could help them get an apartment if they had sex with him; and he did indeed have sex with some of them. He was convicted of several counts of forcible rape, but one of the charges was that one of the women, R.G., consented but only because of his lies. The court upheld the rape by fraud conviction, reasoning thus: –ed.]

[T]he Appellant approached R.G. while she was at the market in Natanya. The Appellant told her that she looked familiar, that he was the chairman of a highest committee in the Housing Department, and identified himself as Yaron. The Appellant asked her whether she owned a house or whether she rented. R.G. responded that she had been renting for 15 years and taking care of six children.
The Appellant claimed that she is entitled to an apartment and offered to see an apartment with her. R.G. drove with the Appellant to Ramat Poleg where the Appellant pointed at a cottage and told her that this is her house, but since he does not have the keys to the cottage, he offered her coffee in a friend’s apartment. The Appellant took R.G. to his room and as they entered, locked the door and told her that the house he just showed her will be hers within three months.
At a certain point, the Appellant started caressing R.G.’s neck and back, and when she inquired as to his actions, he told her that he wanted her to be with him, that it would be good for her and that he would help her with the house. R.G. took his hand off, wished to leave and asked him to open the door. At that point, the Appellant told her that she would receive the promised cottage and because of that, R.G. agreed to have sexual relations with him[, which they did]....
Section 345 of the Criminal Law [now reads] …

“(a) One who has intercourse with a woman

(1) without her freely given consent through the use of force, physical injury, other pressure triggers, or a threat to use one of the above against her or someone else

(2) with her consent that was given through the use of fraud as to the nature of the actor or the essence of the act

(3) when the woman is a minor, less than 14 years of age, even though she has consented

(4) when the woman is unconscious, or is unable to consent [or]

(5) when the woman is mentally or emotionally ill, if she had not given her consent but for her illness.

Is thus a rapist, and the sentence is 16 years in prison.…” …

Section 414 of the Criminal Law states that fraud is “a claim of a past, present or future fact that is communicated by writing, speaking, or behavior and which the person who is claiming this knows that it to be false or does not believe it to be true.” ...
Fraud as to the Essence of the Act
In cases where the conviction was based on fraud as to the essence of the act, a sexual act was performed under the pretense of a professional treatment. There are many examples. In In re Tayeb, the Appellant, a physical therapist, treated a young Australian woman and under the pretense of treatment performed an indecent act. This Court convicted the Appellant of rape pursuant to section 345(a)(4) and sodomy ..., in addition to his conviction of an indecent act to which consent was fraudulently obtained. In re Avivi dealt with a painter who invited women to pose for him, in return for payment and under the pretense that touching them was an integral part of his artistic work, performed sexual acts against them. The Appellant was convicted of rape by fraud as to the essence of the act and indecent act…. In State of Israel v. Dr. Bogdan Dekel, a gynecologist raped and performed indecent acts against several patients during gynecological examinations. In Pelah v. State of Israel a clinical psychologist was convicted among other things of indecent acts and sodomy by fraud after performing sexual acts against several patients under the pretence that those acts were part of the treatment.
Finally, the subject in Peloni v. State of Israel was a sheikh who was believed to have healing powers, which also extended to sexual problems. The Complainant, a young Bedouin woman came to him with her husband to ask for his advice. Among some of the “medical instruments” he used were holding her breasts, putting his hand on her genitals, raping and sodomizing her and inserting his genitals into her mouth. The Appellant was convicted of rape pursuant to section 345(a)(2), attempted rape, indecent act and sexual attack.
Fraud as to the Nature of the Actor
The District Court’s verdict focused on rape as to the nature of the actor…. [D]efining the offense … is not simple ..., and there is a danger of a slippery slope: Will it be considered rape every time a man lies to a woman concerning a detail which she considers of essence and because of it she decides to have intercourse with him? For example, a woman who does not wish to date any man older than 35 years old is approached on a dating site by a man who identifies himself as 32 years old. After she has intercourse with him, she incidentally finds out that he is 40 years old; is that rape? After all, this is an important detail in her eyes.
And what about a man who lies about his education to a woman for whom academics is at the top of the list and who wishes to date an academic or one with a specific profession (doctor, engineer), and if the woman knew that the man does not meet this criterion she would not even have considered having sexual relations with him? We can think of numerous examples, but reality exceeds all imagination, especially in our world where many acquaintances start virtually, which is a fruitful ground for submitting incorrect information .... At the end of the day we are faced with the question, where do we draw the line? When does a “white lie” part of “legitimate courting” become “fraud” denying one of freely giving their consent?
Courts have not dealt much with rape by fraud as to the essence of the actor, and there are not many which have convicted defendants of this offense…. In State of Israel v. Mehadakar the defendant contacted young women, through the internet, presenting himself as a 17–22 year old man (while in reality he was 30 years old) and had intercourse with them. Based on his own admission, the defendant was convicted of rape pursuant to section 345(a)(2) in one of the cases and of fraudulently receiving a benefit in the others as part of a plea bargain.
Reviewing the ruling, it seems that there are cases, which could have been included within the category of “rape by fraud,” yet the complaint and the conviction were of fraudulently receiving a benefit. In Denino v. State of Israel, a married man presented himself to the Complainant as divorced and added that he was waiting to receive certain documents from France so that he could remarry. During one of their meetings, the man first forcibly had intercourse with the Complainant and with her consent the second time. The Supreme Court judges were divided as to whether they should convict the Appellant of fraudulently receiving a benefit, pursuant to section 2 of the Criminal Law. One of the Judges felt that intercourse should not be considered a benefit in this context, yet, Judge Ben Porat and Judge Shamgar thought that the conviction was justified and denied the appeal. Judge Shamgar stated:
“... [A] woman deserves [to have the power] to decide whether she wants to have a relationship with a married man, a father, or whether she does not want to get impregnated by such a man; and the man does not have the power to determine whether to hide the facts from her that could influence her decision ....”
In Elishabi v. State of Israel, the subject was a married Bedouin man and a father to two children who presented himself to a 16 year old girl as a Jewish bachelor. The two started seeing each other and the Appellant promised to marry her at the end of the school year. The two had intercourse and the girl got pregnant. As part of his act of impersonation, he attended the Seder [a Passover ritual dinner –ed.] at her house and even read from the Hagada [the Passover religious text –ed.], as well as came to pay his respects when the girl’s grandfather passed away. The Appellant was convicted of fraudulently receiving a benefit and impersonation.
Finally, in Ben Avraham v. State of Israel, a man systematically presented himself to women using different identities — a doctor, a pilot, a wealthy man — while characterizing various houses and vehicles as belonging to his family and him. The Appellant was convicted of fraudulently receiving a benefit after it concluded that the women had intercourse with him because of his deception. The Court noted: “... [P]art of courtship [is that] people tend to exaggerate in order to impress the other, and the judicial system should not enforce norms as to what should be the moral way to act or ‘courtship rules.’ Yet, where the lies take a different form, and become depravity aimed at ‘hunting women’ whether they be innocent or not, and the line demarking what’s allowed and what’s not has been crossed, what’s moral becomes the law and the enforcing systems need to intervene.” …
The ruling did not discuss this much, and the cases we have reviewed do not sufficiently provide us with clear guidelines as to when we have a case involving rape by fraud .... Thus, we are faced with the question: in what cases has sex by fraud taken place? What kind of lies and concealed facts are enough to transform “legitimate courtship” into a criminal offense? What does a man have to reveal when he is developing a relationship that will lead to intercourse? Does he have to present the complete picture?
Such a discussion took place in State of Israel v. Hen Alkobi, where a young woman initiated romantic relationships with several women, identifying herself as a man. The girl was convicted, based on her own admission, of impersonation. It was noted that: “when an individual has an intimated relationship with another without revealing to him/her the genetic/physical makeup, it shall be considered deceit as to the nature of the actor … when a romantic/erotic relationship is developed between two individuals, the sexual, biological identity of each is an essential element of their relationship. Under these circumstances, concealing one’s sexual identity is considered unfair, misleading as to a relevant fact, which is at the basis of their relationship and deceptive as to the essence of the act and the nature of the actor. If the Court will not intervene, it will be leaving the victims exposed and vulnerable to deception as opposed to not disturbing romance.”
Dr. D. Pogez discussed these issues in [an article] and suggested that the specific fraud related offenses be eliminated as well as the offense relating to intercourse pursuant to a promise of marriage but instead giving full power to the consent component as one given freely and consciously. According to her approach:
“True protection of sexual freedom can only take place on a individual basis, even though justice will be individualized and change depending on the case, exactly as fraud would have a different effect on each person. Thus, we should not limit this to a certain set of situations where fraud would invalidate consent, but rather have a general principle, flexible, where fraud which led to the consent would [cause the consent to be treated as invalid] — even though there are situation where we may assume that consent would be frequently invalidated, such as fraudulently representing that one is single while he is married[.] Protecting a woman’s freedom requires recognizing that there are certain facts that, if [the woman is mistaken as to them], would negate her ability to choose.” ...
In [another] article, A. Gross accepts this approach, yet doubts whether [it] should grant protection where the victim discriminates or is a racist; in these situations, protection of women comes at the cost of hurting the defendants....
[But one could respond to Pogez’s approach by arguing] that the implication is that every time a woman has intercourse with a man, and one detail about him is inaccurate, her consent would be invalidated; furthermore, would we want every sexual interaction between the sexes to be with the support of the criminal code?
And what would happen to romance? Some will argue that the beginning of relationships between men and women are commonly full of a scheme of “white lies,” exaggerated descriptions of reality, part of an attempt to be liked and part of the “courtship landscape.” Do we want this gray area between a man and a woman to be at the control of the criminal code? …
The Court In re Alkobi stated: “Indeed, there is not always a clear line between false presentation and intentionally misleading the partner, that reaches a level of a criminal offense, and one that does not. For example, the Israeli legislators chose to ban misrepresentation by enacting section 346(b), criminally sanctioning an individual who had intercourse with a woman pursuant to a false promise of marriage while pretending to be single when he is in fact married. On the other hand, not every time one does not disclose information, tells a ‘white lie,’ exaggerates, or misstates a detail while courting will consent be invalidated to the extent that the individual will be charged with rape and impersonation, and the courts as well as legislators should be careful criminalizing sexual behavior. The partner’s consent is dependent on cultural and social standards. As time passed and acceptable sexual behavior and morals change, these issues might change as well.” ...
It is difficult to make every interaction between two individuals that contains a “moral fault” be resolved in the context of criminal law. The Criminal Code is not a tool to be used to enforce moral norms, even if there is great overlap between moral and criminal wrongs, and sometimes the appropriate way to resolve an issue should be through the civil court system.
[Yet t]here should clearly be a line that we would not be willing to let people pass, beyond which protected values would be damaged and, if the court does not intervene, victims would be left unprotected…. This is not exaggerated paternalism but protection of the human dignity, of the woman’s autonomy over her body and sexual freedom, as the fraud is what harms the autonomy, and besides forbidding rape, the criminal prohibition is meant to prevent the fraud. At times arguing that this is exaggerated paternalism can mislead and paradoxically, in the name of free choice, deny it, and hurt victims in need of protection….
As was mentioned, Dr. Pogez suggested a test to the question of what is considered sex by fraud. I personally think that this test is too broad, and can include minor statements, even if they are important from the perspective of the partner, as a basis for a rape conviction. There is also some difficulty with the test that respondent has suggested (whether “under the circumstances, the woman’s ‘consent’ does not fulfill her free will due to the fraud”) – the test is not simple since ‘free will’ may be stretched into a whim. However, we should recognize the legislator’s will that the woman’s intimacy and her free autonomy be best realized, especially when the issue is rape.
It seems to me that the answer to the question of the limits and meaning of rape by fraud, can first be found in the meaning of the word “essence.” We will start with the dictionary [definitions, which are] … that essence is the “aggregation of all determinative qualities of an individual, identity,” and identity is defined as the “aggregation of all qualities special to a specific individual or a group of people[,” or that essence is “]the determination of who is a person or body that did or is doing a certain action, that filled or is filling a certain position, etc., identity or the determination of his identity.” …
[T]he principal thing is the aggregation of the essence of an individual — the total qualities that determine who he is. In general, we should distinguish between cases where a man does not say the truth regarding a certain detail about his identity, such as his age or occupation, and cases where he creates a fictitious character and an elaborate “cover story.” It seems that in cases such as the latter, differences in degree become differences in kind....
A possible test could focus on the idea of whether the individual does not tell the truth as to characteristics that are critical in the eyes of a reasonable woman and were the reason for why the woman had intercourse with him. This test will allow rape convictions in clear cases of such fraud, and along with that, screen out borderline cases where the characteristics that a certain woman saw are those that fraud representing them is not to considered rape. Similarly, [the test will allow punishment in cases where] there was no chance in the eyes of a reasonable man that a woman would agree to have intercourse with such a man under “normal” circumstances had she known his true identity ....
Indeed, ... it is a hard task to design a test that would clearly show us what cases have reached a level of rape by fraud, and it is impossible for us to include all the possible cases and variations. Yet, the standard we suggested, identifying the possibility a reasonable woman would have intercourse with this man had he not fabricated this “essence,” would allow us to examine every case and the circumstances surrounding it, and the concrete facts will determine the outcome. We do not to ask ourselves whether all those borderline cases are considered rape by fraud, but when we are faced with an appropriate case — even though we will not rely on “I know it when I see it,” as said by Judge Stewart when asked what obscenity is (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964); see also Station Film v. the Film and Play Critics Association) — we will rule as needed, as such we will do in the case before us.
Furthermore, ... I do not believe we should address this as part of a discussion of fraudulently receiving a benefit…. [W]e cannot include cases where at issue is property and wealth along with intercourse at the same time we are discussing a fraudulently receiving a benefit, especially when the legislature has established a special category for intimate offenses meant to protect the freedom of autonomy over a woman’s body, freedom and more than anything her respect as a human being....
Conclusion, Ruling
The case before us clearly falls within the sex by fraud category. The Appellant presented himself as a high official in the Housing Department and as one who could easily help them get an apartment so that they he would have intercourse with him. Many times he succeeded and other times he did not. He used their problems; [victim] R.G. would not have … [had] sexual relations with him but for the chance to fulfill her wish and get her own apartment….
[Agreed to by all three judges.] [The defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison plus 2 years on probation, but it’s not clear how much of this was premised on the forcible rape convictions and how much on the rape-by-fraud conviction.]

State v. Kashur, Jerusalem District Court (2010)
[Press accounts suggested that the decision here was apparently the result of a plea bargain; M.Z. alleged that Kashur had forcibly raped her, but Kashur and the prosecution agreed to his pleading guilty to rape by fraud. Other press accounts suggested that Kashur never actually told M.Z. that he was Jewish, but just used a Jewish-sounding nickname. Nonetheless, the court’s account suggests that M.Z. ultimately testified that she did consent, but based on defendant’s fraudulent representation that he was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship; and defendant apparently conceded as much in court. Here is the court’s account. –ed.]
The defendant was convicted, based on his confession to the facts in the amended indictment that were consolidated into the plea bargain after hearing the evidence presented by the accuser, of committing the offense of rape and lewd acts under section 345(a)(2) ….
According to the amended indictment, on the date of September 3, 2008 at 1:00pm, in the building on 12 Hillel Street in Jerusalem ..., the defendant raped M.Z. [the accuser] ... and committed against her lewd acts as detailed below.
The defendant, who is married, fraudulently represented himself to the accuser as a Jewish bachelor who ... was interested in a serious romantic relationship. The defendant proposed that the accuser accompany him into the building and, on the basis of the false representation described, she agreed. The defendant ascended in the elevator with the accuser to the top floor of the building. In the elevator, the defendant groped the accuser, rubbed his penis against her body, lifted her shirt and bra and kissed her breasts. All this was done by the defendant with the consent of the accuser, which was achieved through deception by means of the false presentation.
When they arrived at the top floor of the building, the defendant removed the accuser’s pants and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina until satisfaction. This too he did with consent of the accuser, who was convinced through fraud and deception to rely on the false representation described above. After the defendant had intercourse with the accuser and committed the lewd acts described, he exited the building and left her naked on the top floor of the building….
At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the prosecuting attorney stressed that the central fact that the defendant left the complainant naked on the top floor of the building illustrates the complex interaction between them that gave rise to this crime. However, the defendant emphasized that these actions were not performed by force.
Nevertheless, the defendant interfered with [M.Z.’s] ability to object by means of misrepresenting the facts of his personal situation — that he was single man interested in a serious relationship. Consequently, the defendant exploited the accuser’s desire for a deep emotional connection, for only on account of this did she agree to have intercourse with him. Therefore, the Probation Service report, with regard to mandatory elements, requests that the defendant be incarcerated for a significant period of time as compensation to the accuser….
There is no dispute that the defendant committed the crime of rape against the accuser, to this he confessed, and on the basis of this he was also convicted in court. It is clear to all, that the we are speaking of one of the most serious crimes in the criminal code, which carries a maximum penalty of extended incarceration and even a minimum prison term of 4 years.... However, before us is not a “classic” case of rape — a forceful one. And the complaint that was initially consolidated, which defined actual opposition by the accuser to the actions of the defendant, was amended in the course of proceedings, after hearing her testimony that clarified that [the defendant’s actions] were perpetrated with her consent but that [the consent] was acquired fraudulently in that she relied on his false representation. Specifically: had she not thought that the defendant was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated with him….
[As to sentencing], one must not forget that the crime of rape committed “on account of” false pretenses is what is being judged here.... I do not think that this is a situation in which to question the imposition of incarceration .... And not only for the maximum [suggested] by the defense in this regard — six months.... It is the obligation of the court to protect the public from sophisticated criminals with slick tongues and sweet lips, for with these tools they pillage innocent victims, imposing a price too heavy to bear — the sanctity of [the victims’] body and spirit. At a time when the basis of trust between people is weak, [and] all the more so when dealing with such intimate and sensitive matter, we are choosing fates. The court must stand forcefully and actively on the side of the victims to protect their interests. Otherwise, they will be exploited, manipulated, deceived, for the [mere] price of an acceptable, symbolic penalty.
It is impossible to know or understand fully how the accuser felt after the defendant exited the building and left her behind, naked, on the top floor…. In committing this [crime], the defendant demonstrated basic human insensitivity toward his victim, as though she was solely a means of satisfying his desires for himself, nothing more....
After deliberating on the considerations of the various punishments and weighing the unique attributes of this case, including the period of detention already served by the defendant — whether behind bars, or in the walls of his home (under electronic monitoring), including, as well, in the circumstances of this matter, those specific reasons that justify a lessening of his punishment — I advise my peers to impose on the defendant the following punishments based on the minimum penalties proscribed by law, most of which will be under suspended sentence, the delineation of which is as follows:
A.... [Eighteen] months in prison, less the days of his [prior] incarceration — October 5, 2008 to November 28, 2008.
B. Thirty months suspended sentence ....
C. Compensation to the accuser in the amount of 10,000 [shekels] to be paid in 10 equal monthly payments ....
[Agreed to by all three judges.]

via volokh.com

Saudi Royal Prince has Gay Sadomasochist Arab Lover Killed

Bandar Abdulaziz was found

beaten and strangled

in the Landmark Hotel
Marylebone, central London,
on 15 February.

CCTV of Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud
and his servant was shown at the Old Bailey

A Saudi prince murdered
his servant in an attack
which had a "sexual element",
the Old Bailey has heard.

The court was told
Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud
had carried out several
assaults on the victim
before he died.

Mr al Saud, 34,
admits manslaughter
but denies murder
and one count of causing
grievous bodily
harm with intent.

'Sexual element' in Saudi
prince's servant killing that means :
King Abdullah's Grandson
Putts to the Rough

The jury has been asked to decide whether he is guilty of manslaughter or murder.
When the body was found the prince claimed his aide had been attacked and robbed three weeks before his death.
But the jury was told Mr al Saud carried out the killing - and injuries including bite marks to Mr Abdulaziz's face showed the "ferocity of the attack to which he had been subjected".

The prince has claimed he was "friends and equals" with his servant and denied being gay.
Jonathan Laidlaw QC, prosecuting, said: "The evidence establishes quite conclusively that he is either gay or that he has homosexual tendencies.
"It is clear that his abuse of Bandar was not confined simply to physical beatings.
"There is clear evidence, over and above the bite marks, that there was also a sexual element to his mistreatment of the victim."
The court heard that the prince and his aide had been staying together at the hotel since 20 January as part of an extended holiday.
Mr Abdulaziz's body was found with blood on the pillow and the defendant appeared "shocked and upset", the court heard.
Mr al Saud told police officers they had been drinking in the hotel bar until the early hours of the morning before returning to the room and that when he woke at about 1500 GMT he could not rouse the victim.
The prince had tried to clean up some of the blood and wash some of Mr Abdulaziz's bloodstained clothing, Mr Laidlaw said.
'Sexual connotation'
Bloodstains found in the room were "consistent with the victim having been the subject of a series of separate assaults before he was killed", the jury heard.

The prince admits killing his servant but denies murder

Asked by police about the injuries suffered by the victim, Mr al Saud said he had been robbed three weeks earlier on Edgware Road, in central London.
But CCTV footage showed the prince attacking his servant in the lift of the hotel on two separate occasions in previous weeks and kicking him outside a restaurant on the night of his death.
The post-mortem examination showed Mr Abdulaziz had suffered heavy blows to his head and face, leaving his left eye closed and swollen, his lips split and his teeth chipped and broken.
There were also injuries to his neck, ears and internal organs, bleeding to the brain and a rib fracture.
"There were bite marks to his cheeks, which had 'an obvious sexual connotation," Mr Laidlaw said.
The case continues.

via bbc.co.uk

Hamas Was Using Phosphorus Bombs

The Goldstone Commission was concerned about how phosphorus bombs were used during Operation Cast Lead--but that was only because Israel was using them, even though they were used for the smoke and not for the damage it can cause.
Hamas was also using phosphorus bombs during that very same time. On January 14, 2009, Haaretz reported: For the first time, Gaza militants fire phosphorus shell at Israel:

Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday fired their first phosphorus shell into Israel, which exploded in an open area in the Eshkol area in the western Negev.


No injuries or damage were reported.
The phosphorus shell came as Gaza militants fired at least 16 rockets at southern Israel throughout the day Wednesday, causing no casualties.
White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon. Militaries are permitted under laws of warfare to use it in artillery shells, bombs and rockets to create smoke screens to hide troop movements as well as bright bursts in the air to illuminate battlefields at night.
However, the substance can cause serious burns if it touches the skin and can spark fires on the ground.
Human Rights Watch on Sunday accused Israel of firing artillery shells packed with white phosphorus over populated areas of Gaza during recent fighting, including a crowded refugee camp, putting civilians at risk.
Israel maintains that it uses munitions in complete accordance with international law.

Now it looks that Hamas, which has not got around to responding to the Goldstone Report, is at it again. Elder of Ziyon points out this report from YnetNews:

At least two of the nine mortar shells fired Wednesday into Eshkol Regional Council were phosphorus bombs, police confirmed after initially declining the corroborate a claim made by the area's security officer.
Police sappers examined and identified the two phosphorus bombs. ...Police said that this is not the first time phosphorus bombs have been fired from Gaza.

via daledamos.blogspot.com

...so it wasn't just Israel, the United States, Russia and everyone else

noahdavidsimon's posterous

and in Norway where the country was so outraged that Israel followed the same procedure as any other nation?

It appears Aftenposten is unable to relate events as they happen in Israel, at least judging by what they chose to print.

Whilst it did print a story about a Hamas operative who was shot and killed when refusing to cease approaching soldiers during a raid in the West Bank , it totally ignores the barrage of rockets, including Katyushas (the ones, which according to Norwegian journalists who enjoy the cheap beer and booze in Israel, provoke nothing but a minor itch, as by a mosquito bite), shells containing phosphorous that has fallen over villages and towns in Israel proper during the Jewish New Year festival. More than 50.000 innocent civilians have had to stay close to shelters, rather than enjoying peaceful New Year celebrations with family and friends.
For the uninitiated, Hamas operatives take great pride in killing and maiming anyone, Jew or Arab, as long as this can derail the ongoing peace talks between Israel and the PA, a minor fact omitted in any Aftenposten piece on Israel you would care to read.
It goes without saying that Aftenposten and the rest of the media pack in Norway thinks it wholly irrelevant to mention the fact that Hamas has as a stated goal to eradicate Israel and murder as many Jews as possible in the process.
To the moral supremacists in Norway none of this is of importance, and if they have to lie and distort in order to have their version of the “truth” prevail, so be it.
On reflection, maybe these left wing loonies have confused Karl Marx with Groucho Marx? On seeing how selective their moral concerns are, it is tempting to reach this conclusion, as it seems they all live by the wise words of Groucho: The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

via israelwhat.com

Andrew Sullivan is a flaming boy loving pederast

Andrew Sullivan apparently believes that the picture below is cute - he nominated it for his 'Face of the Day' on Wednesday.
Here's the caption:

On October 5, 2010 a Palestinian boy tightens the t-shirt facemask of his friend as they get ready to throw stones at Israeli soldiers at the entrance of the Palestinian West Bank village of Beit Fajjar where a mosque was desecrated by vandals the day before. By Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images.

If Sullivan had to face those stone throwers rather than just posting pictures of them, he might find them a little less charming.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

I don't have to be as politically correct as the blog Israel Matzav that I steal my shit from.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America; Will America Notice?

This is one of those obscure  Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don't fit their policies; and by experts, because they don't mesh with their preconceptions.
This explicit formulation of a revolutionary program makes it a game-changer. It should be read by every Western decisionmaker and have a direct effect on policy because this development may affect people’s lives in every Western country.
OK, cnough of a build-up? Well, it isn’t exaggerated. So don’t think the next sentence is an anticlimax. Here we go: The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has endorsed anti-American Jihad and pretty much every element in the al-Qaida ideology book. Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition force in Egypt and Jordan as well as the most powerful group, both politically and religiously, in the Muslim communities of Europe and North America this is pretty serious stuff.
By the way, no one can argue that he merely represents old, tired policies of the distant past because Badi was just elected a few months ago. His position reflects current thinking.
Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.
But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.
When the extreme and arguably marginal British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary says that Islam will conquer the West and raise its flag over the White House, that can be treated as wild rhetoric. His remark is getting lots of attention because he said it in English in an interview with CNN. Who cares what he says?
But when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood says the same thing in Arabic, that's a program for action, a call to arms for hundreds of thousands of people, and a national security threat to every Western country.
The Brotherhood is the group that often dominates Muslim communities in the West and runs mosques. Its cadre control front groups that are often recognized by Western democratic governments and media as authoritative. Government officials in many countries meet with these groups, ask them to be advisers for counter-terrorist strategies and national policies, and even fund them.
President Barack Obama speaks about a conflict limited solely to al-Qaida. And if one is talking about the current military battle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen that point makes sense. Yet there is a far bigger and wider battle going on in which revolutionary Islamists seek to overthrow their own rulers and wage long-term, full-scale struggle against the West. If it doesn't involve violence right now it will when they get strong enough or gain power.
More than three years ago, I warned about this development, in a detailed analysis explaining, “The banner of the Islamist revolution in the Middle East today has largely passed to groups sponsored by or derived from the Muslim Brotherhood.” I pointed out the differences—especially of tactical importance—between the Brotherhood groups and al-Qaida or Hizballah, but also discussed the similarities. This exposure so upset the Brotherhood that it put a detailed response on its official website to deny my analysis.
Yet now here is the Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi giving a sermon entitled, “How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny,” translated by MEMRI. Incidentally, everything Badi says is in tune with the stances and holy books of normative Islam. It is not the only possible interpretation but it is a completely legitimate interpretation. Every Muslim knows, even if he disagrees with the Brotherhood’s position, that this isn’t heresy or hijacking or misunderstanding.
Finally, this is the group that many in the West, some in high positions, are urging to be engaged as a negotiating partner because it is supposedly moderate.
What does he say?
--Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah's commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah's word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.
--All Muslims are required by their religion to fight: "They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life." Notice that jihad here is not interpreted as so often happens by liars, apologists, and the merely ignorant in the West as spiritual striving. The clear meaning is one of armed struggle.
--The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise."
--Palestinians should back Hamas in overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and unite in waging war on Israel.
Incidentally, what Melanie Philips has written on this issue fits perfectly here:
--Rational calculations of the kind applied by the West to its adversaries, mirror-imaging, assuming that Muslims won't act in a revolutionary and even suicidal manner want a better future for their children, etc., do not apply to the Islamist movement:
"Allah said: 'The hosts will all be routed and will turn and flee [Koran 54:45].' This verse is a promise to the believers that they shall defeat their enemies, and [that the enemies] shall withdraw. The Companions of the Prophet received this Koranic promise in Mecca, when they were weak... and a little more than nine years [later], Allah fulfilled his promise in the Battle of Badr....Can we compare that to what happened in Gaza?....Allah is the best of schemers, and that though Him you shall triumph. Islam is capable of confronting oppression and tyranny, and that the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah."
This says: It doesn’t matter how long the battle goes on, how many die, how much destruction is unleashed, how low your living standards fall, how unfavorable the odds appear to be, none of that is important or should deter you.
In the real world, of course, the Islamists are unlikely to win over the long run of, say, 50 or 100 years. But those views do mean that these 50 or 100 years are going to be filled with instability and bloodshed.
Equally, Badi’s claims do not mean all Muslims must agree, much less actively take up arms. They can have a different interpretation, simply disregard the arguments, and be too intimidated or materialistic or opportunistic to agree or to act. Yet hundreds of thousands will do so and millions will cheer them on. And by the same token, neither the radical nor the passive will assist in moving toward more moderation or peace or compromise.
Well, will the problem go away if people in the West condemn “Islamophobia” or make concessions or apologize or produce a just peace? No.
His words provide some important points for people in the West to consider:
"Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”
First, the more the likelihood that U.S. policy might obtains a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the more anti-American violent activity will be sparked among the Islamists and their very large base of support, the more Iran and Syria will sponsor terrorism. Desirable as peace or even progress toward peace might be, the West should have no illusions about those things providing regional stability, and they will produce more instability.
Second, U.S. actions of apology, concessions, and withdrawals—whether or not any of the specific steps are useful or desirable—they are interpreted by the Islamists and by many in the Middle East as signs of weakness which should spark further aggression and violence. There are hundreds of examples of this reaction every month. Here's a leading moderate Saudi journalist explaining how many Iraqis and other Arabs are viewing the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq means that it is turning the country over to Iran. Wrong but an accurate show of that very common Middle East way of thinking.
Indeed, this last factor explains the Brotherhood's timing. Note that he says nothing about fighting Egypt's government, which won't hesitate to throw the Brotherhood leaders into prison and even to torture them. Still, the coming leadership transition in Egypt, with the death or retirement of President Husni Mubarak, seems to offer opportunities.
The new harder line coincides with the Brotherhood's announcement that it will run candidates in the November elections, another sign of its confidence and increased militancy. The Brotherhood is not a legal group but the government lets members run in other parties. Its candidates won about 20 percent of the vote in the last elections, especially impressive given the regime's repressive measures. If the Brotherhood intends to defy Egyptian law now there will be confrontations, mass arrests, and perhaps violence.
Most important of all, however, Badi and many others sense weakness on the part of the West, especially the U.S. leaders, and victory for the Islamists.
Even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is warning about such things. Blair comes from the British Labour Party. Many conservatives understand these issues. But the West can never respond successfully without a broader consensus about the nature of the threat and the need for a strong response. Where are Blair's counterparts in the left-of-center forces in North America, the kind of people who played such a critical role in confronting and defeating the previous wave of anti-democratic extremism, Communism?
In August 1996, al-Qaida declared war on America, the West, Christians and Jews. Nobody important paid much attention to this. Almost exactly five years later, September 11 forced them to notice. Let it be said that in September 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood issued its declaration of war. What remains is the history of the future.

via rubinreports.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Netanyahu: Settlement Freeze--Not In Exchange For Pollard, But For Bush Letter

Last month, the rumor was that Netanyahu was willing to extend the moratorium on the settlements in exchange for the release of Jonathan Pollard, an idea that Pollard himself did not seem to embrace.
Another month, another rumor.
Now it is being said that Netanyahu is willing to extend the settlement freeze in return for recognition of the Bush letter and what it implies, something that the Obama has refused to do in the past.
Here is the complete text of the Letter from U.S. President George W. Bush
to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, from April 14, 2004--and here is the key paragraph:

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. [emphasis added]

The implication of the letter, especially since it correctly refers to the armistice lines as opposed to a border, is that to some degree some of the settlements will remain in Israeli hands as part of a peace agreement.
According to AFP:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked US President Barack Obama to abide by commitments his predecessor in the White House made to Israel in 2004, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.
Netanyahu "is demanding that US President Barack Obama reaffirm the commitments that were given by his predecessor George W. Bush to then prime minister Ariel Sharon," the mass circulation Yediot Aharonot daily said.
"First and foremost among these, the American support for Israeli annexation of the settlement blocs as part of any final status arrangement," the daily quoted Netanyahu as saying.
To convince his ministers to accept a moratorium on new construction in West Bank settlements outside annexed Arab east Jerusalem, Netanyahu is "trying to extract from the Americans unambiguous commitments," the newspaper said.

If this offer is really on the table, will Obama go for it in order to keep the talks going?
It's one thing to release Pollard--it is a one-time deal with no ongoing repercussions.
But to agree to the Bush letter will not only outrage the Arabs, who are demanding a unilateral concession from Israel--it will also have serious repercussions down the road on peace negotiations, both during the Obama administration and during presidential administrations to come.
So again, the question comes down to whether Obama, who is so keen on talking about the sacrifices that Netanyahu and Abbas must make, is willing himself to make a sacrifice in order to get the concession from Netanyahu that may keep the talks going.
I can't see it happening, can you?
Note: Here is how Ari Shavit introduces the idea in his opinion piece in Haaretz:

Here's a creative idea. In exchange for freezing construction in the West Bank for 60 days, the U.S. will renew the commitment President Bush made in his April 2004 letter. Bush's letter was given to Ariel Sharon in exchange for the disengagement. It consists of a vague commitment that when peace is made, the settlement blocs will remain in Israel's hands and the Palestinian refugees will not return to Israel.

"Creative idea"? Shavit is not reporting on the offer, but rather mentioning it as if the idea is his own.
Is he the source of the rumor?

via daledamos.blogspot.com

struggling to get America to agree to their own agreements. sigh

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Naked Cowboy, Times Square staple, to run for President in 2012 as Tea Party candidate

The Naked Cowboy -- Time Square's tighty-whitey wearing, guitar-toting tourist magnet -- According to the 39-year-old, his policies would include... making drug tests for welfare recipients mandatory. It's not the first time Burck has considered running for public office. He announced a bid for mayor in 2009, but later dropped out. While he shared his latest aspirations on national television earlier this month, this is the first announcement Burck has made declaring he'd run under a Tea Party platform.
drug tests? Tu Quo Que

noahdavidsimon's posterous

No ID card for you, elderly woman told

via times.co.sz LONHLUPHEKO – An elderly woman has been denied an identity card (ID) because her fingerprints cannot be detected on a scanner. Joyce Nhlabatsi, who is in her late 60s, said she went to the local immigration office to apply for an ID, but was turned back because the officers failed to detect her fingerprints. Nhlabatsi said her situation was difficult because she has been struggling to get elderly grants since she does not have an ID card. "I have now lost hope because I have been told by the welfare officers that I won’t get my grants if I fail to produce an ID card," said Nhlabatsi. Nhlabatsi said she did not understand why it has been difficult for her fingerprints to be read through the scanner. Lugongolweni Member of Parliament, Joseph Souza said he was aware of the issue.


this is the information age. those that are a square peg to a centralized government will not exist to help.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Your Daily Dose of Photo File Bile

Who the heck signed off on this crummy photo from AFP/Getty? Are photographers so lazy that they're now using tree branches to create the effect of barbed wire?

A picture taken from the Palestinian village of Hawara shows in the background the hard-line Jewish settlement of Yitzhar in the northern West Bank on October 6, 2010. (AFP/Getty Images, Jaafar Ashtiyeh)
There's definitely a pattern in photo file bile. This is the same photographer I blogged yesterday over a different file photo.
Remember the old days when photographers used real barbed wire to create the effect of settlements as defiant and dehumanizing? I'm talking about images like this:

The West Bank Jewish settlement of Beitar Ilit is seen through a barbed wire fence, Friday, Sept. 4, 2009. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to approve some hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements before slowing settlement construction, two of his aides said Friday, in an apparent snub of Washington's public demand for a total settlement freeze. (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

via backspin.typepad.com

disgusting bias

noahdavidsimon's posterous