Average Rating

5 Star
4 Star
3 Star
2 Star
1 Star

36 thoughts on “Kastav indicted for Rape

  1. Well, let’s just see if he’s guilty first, shall we…?

    And by the way, Clinton didn’t rape anyone – he just lied because he knew politically correct mid-west americans would scr.. him up, even if he hadn’t broken any laws. I’m no Clinton fan, but his personal love-life cost him his position, and the only reason he broke the law was because he knew the US voters wouldn’t accept him NOT living up to their high ideals (which they rarely live up to themselves, by the way). Why do you think Clinton is so popular in Europe while Bush is history’s least respected president? Oh well, rant over…

  2. Adam B: I have two words for you – Juanita Broderick.

    As for Kastav: the anti-jooz squad are going to have a field day with this one. Further proof that Israel should be annihilated, jooz should be persecuted, “we” have superior morals…

  3. In 2005, Hamid bin Abdal Sani, member of Qatar royal family, was detained here in Czech Republic for sex with minors. He has some procurers, who got him the girls, then he has fun, girls got money and everything was fine, but the fact, that some of the girls were under the legal limit of 15 years. After some investigation, the case of “Qatar prince” was transfered to Qatar, so was the prince, and I believe that is all and mr. prince will never be bothered with it anymore. I wonder, do the people of Qatar know about that?

  4. Adam B.,

    Of course Clinton was not accused of raping anybody. But he certainly did engage in inappropriate sexual relations with quite a large number of women working under him (figuratively and, it seems, literally). This occurred while he was President, and also while he was Governor of Arkansas (and had state troopers rounding up sexual partners for him) Any fair minded person would see this as a massive abuse of office and a violation of the public trust. Unlike you, I was a Clinton fan, and voted for him twice. Perhaps that’s why I feel more violated than you do.

    And, by the way, his personal love life cost him nothing. He was impeached and acquitted, and served the remainder of his term.

  5. What a shandra!!

    Its nice that Israel demonstrates its a country of laws, not men. But the old cliche is true: The more free a society is, the more it will be vilified.

  6. Good on the Israelis.
    I have a question, isn’t Kastav the head of state? I mean he is not really the head of government. I get confused, can someone please explain it to me ?
    What powers does the president of Israel have?
    Is it similar to the GG in Canada, where the GG’s role is purely symbolic?

    Thanks in advance

  7. The accusations are unproven. They seem wild to me, considering he started the whole thing with a claim of blackmail. Let us wait a bit, shall we? Who cares about the president of Israel or the Queen of England anyway?

  8. Oh Arab fan of truth and justice, congratulations on embodying the one most prominent features of Arab regimes: assuming guilty before a fair trial.

  9. Meh. I second Zvi. I also see Katzav as the end of the presidency as a place for capable individuals, diplomats, scientists etc, even one outspoken guy who most likely took bribes, but who still did a great deal for Israel in the air-force.

    Then we got a deadbeat politician. Joy. And he gets indicted with rape. Double joy.

  10. hmmmmm….. just another reason why women should rule the world. (but I’m not 100% sure that he’s guilty– this could be just more men playing games, trying to oust him for some other stupid reason……) Only messiah knows!

  11. Now, now, peacewoman, the modern liberated woman of today knows how to play conspiracy games and sexually harass her underlings, just like the men do. 😉

  12. “Everyone else can prejudge him if they want.”

    Hopefully not before the jury has been selected tho. And in this guys case, there’s no possible way considering his immunity until his term ends.

  13. Jason,

    In Israel there is no trial by jury.


    I cannot make out any reason why anybody would go far to get rid of him now. His presidency is expiring by July 07 anyway and his position does not yield any specific political power. I was very cautious on this as well for this reason: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1162378332165&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    However, Katzav’s rant yesterday, posing as the victim and everyone in a conspiracy against him (beause he is Mizrachi!) just convinced me that the type might be stupid enough to force himself on a woman and later on complain on her blackmailing him…

  14. I presumed there was, damn you Brooklyn Jon. Guess they aren’t as influenced by the anglo legal system as I thought there. In that case, prejudege away Israel. LOL

    Posing as a victim and claiming conspiracy .. sounds like the ME is rubbing off on him 😛

  15. Jason,

    I will humbly accept my damnation with quiet dignity. 😉

    Their legal system is a complete hodgepodge of legal systems which include the UK, the USA, I think France or Belgium or something, and various other influences, many of which conflict with one another. A legal system without a constitution is kinda like a language without an alphabet.

    Around a thousand years ago I ended up in a conversation about the inanity of Israel’s constitutionlessness, and the havoc it wreaks on their judiciary with – of all people – Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert. No, I’m not kidding. He started out defending it, but ultimately had to accept that it is kinda dumb.

  16. Brooklyn-Jon,

    There are more countries without a constitution than Israel and they are not doing that bad. The Israeli legal system is by no means more complicated than that of other countries. British law remains one basis, because with the declaration of independence not all laws could be issued at once and therefore British law was in force unless or until it was replaced by Israeli law.

    You seem to be an American patriot. That’s fine with me but take care that it does not translate into arrogance. Olmert might have agreed with you mainly because it is no good to insist too much at diplomatic dinner parties or comparable events.

  17. As for Kastav: the anti-jooz squad are going to have a field day with this one. Further proof that Israel should be annihilated, jooz should be persecuted, “we” have superior morals…

    You mean anti-Israel squad… why is it that when ever someone criticize ISRAEL, Jews or whom ever always say change their words by inserting Jews instead of Israel and begin their usual “you anti-semtic… you nazi… you…..” Get a life.

    On another note, this gives the Israel’s the chance to focus on a rapists rather than baby killers. I guess everyone needs a change of topic time to time.

  18. Ruth,

    My complaint with the Israeli legal system in particular was not just that it did not rest on a constitution, but that it used as a legitimate basis of legal opinion the constitutions and established case law of several different countries, which often contradicted one another. So, for example, in trying a case of libel, they could use the American standard (truth is an absolute defense) or the British standard (true statements can still be libellous if they are defamatory), or both. It makes for an incoherent body of case law on which to base precedents.

    In general, though, the decision of whether or not to have a constitution depends, philosophically speaking, on whether you place greater value on democracy or rights. A constitution, and a court of law that is superior to the legislature (such as we have in the US of A) is inherently antidemocratic. But it does prevent the legislature from abridging rights, particularly of minorities. A legislature that is unfettered from constitutional oversight can pretty much do whatever it wants, the minority be damned.

    So yes, I am an American patriot, but not an American chauvinist. I think rights are more important than democracy, and this may come from my being a minority, but more likely because I think a democracy without rights quickly devolves into an oligarchy.

    I assure you, Olmert, like most Jews, feels no need to agree politely. We disagree for sport.

  19. The concept presidency in Israel is actually quite funny. It’s more like a king (or queen) than a president as we know to have them in republican countries.

  20. I have good reason to believe Katsav is as guilty as hell. He was a lowlife politician, and the fact that he managed to wrangle himself the cushiest job of all while his resume contains nil contribution to Israel or the world is further proof of how much of a political scumfuck he is.

    To the question of Israeli jurisprudence, mind you it is considered pretty progressive in legal circles, or so I hear.

    What I find interesting is the Arab view of these events. How do they see our democracy? Is this weakness or admirable? Would they like to see these customs adopted in their societies or do they consider them laughable?
    Nasrallah had some sort of midway comment on Halutz’s resignation. Isn’t it a good thing for a failed leader to take responsibility and resign? Is it a show of strength or weakness and fragility?

  21. Brooklyn-Jon,

    The reason why Israel has no constitution and will not have one for at least the next two generations is obvious, isn’t it? To get our diverse population to agree on anything will take a long time and lots of effort and we had and have neither the time nor the energy for such a procedure with all the other problems we have in this bad neighborhood. Our supreme court, however, is forever pushing for more minority rights and so far has not been limited by the legislation, quite the opposite: I sometimes feel that the supreme court is encroaching on issues which should properly dealt with by the political system.

    You mean that Jews are not polite in general? And I thought that was just an Israeli feature and had hoped that Olmert at least knows basic manners.

  22. Ruth,

    I did not mean to imply that Jews have no manners. I meant to state explicitly that Jews do not view “agreeing” to be a requirement of good manners. To disagree with someone thoughtfully is tantamount to taking what they’re saying seriously. OTOH, saying “Yes, Dear” from behind an unfolded newspaper conveys that you don’t give a whit about what the other person is saying, though you nominally agree with it.

    But beside that point, I was never knocked over by a little old lady in New York getting on a bus…

    I’m familiar with Israel’s constitutional travails. And having a constitution is no guarantee of judicial restraint (N.B. America’s Roe v. Wade). My point was simply that, absent A SINGLE judicial framework (IIRC, the Israeli Supreme Court can base their opinions on Consititutions and precedents from a number of legal systems, though other than the UK and USA, I can’t recall the others), they can pretty much pick and choose as they see fit, and it makes predicting their decisions more or less a crapshoot.

    I could start blabbing about the philosophy of law, and how one theory is that it simply is a predictor of judges’ decisions, but I’ll stop here, for everyone’s sake, including mine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *