By legitimizing rape, Israeli society is moving further into moral decay

Every day we learn something new. However, rape, or “an act of sodomy in the circumstances of rape,” as defined by law when committed against men, is acceptable in certain circumstances. It is necessary to examine the exceptional variables: the context of the rape, the identities of the rapists and the victim.

If the rapists are considered national heroes, the best of our children serving the state, there are significant mitigating circumstances. If the context of the abuse is an unauthorized detention facility, already known for abuse and torture, a public narrative begins to be created that this is not a “common” rape.

What if the victim is a Palestinian detainee from Gaza, not yet tried but already portrayed in the media as a vicious terrorist? In that case, it is not even considered rape. He should be grateful that he was not executed and remain silent. Otherwise, we will find someone to silence him.

Members of the Knesset and government ministers proclaim that our army is the most moral in the world, and that’s it – there is no need for investigations or to examine suspicions. The most moral army in the world does not need to prove its morality – that is a given.

The legitimization of rape through quasi-legal arguments and the flexibility of defense lawyers Nati Rom and Adi Keidar of the far-right organization Honeinu, who often represent Jewish terror suspects, and of politicians who incite violence, is something we should look at as a test case. This has been overlooked in the commotion over the riots at the Sde Teiman detention center and the Beit Lid military court.

Since the beginning of the incident, several different versions have emerged, summed up as “nothing happened. And if it did, so what?” The inmate was injured in a fall. Then: He was injured. And then: Other prisoners attacked him – yes, there is sexual assault among prisoners themselves. Senior terrorists abuse younger, weaker terrorists, the lawyers alleged.

Throughout the episode, they have repeatedly claimed that the prisoner who was attacked was a senior terrorist in the Gaza Strip, acting as a company commander in Jabalya – an attempt to legitimize and justify the acts, if they had actually occurred, which they of course deny. But if he is a senior terrorist, how does that fit into the “senior terrorists attacking younger terrorists” theory?

They then argued that terrorists hide objects for attacks in intimate parts of the body, thus justifying an intrusive examination as per procedures. Then, the defense attorneys and self-proclaimed defenders stressed that even if there were to be a search, it would be carried out with the prisoner fully clothed.

In an interview with Channel 13, one of the lawyers lamented the investigation, mentioned the “medical problem” of the prisoner, now described as company commander Shujaiyeh, and incidentally stated that “he should be given a death sentence and tortured.”

On Channel 14, lawyer Efraim Demri said that he was one of the most dangerous terrorists and “every day we should cut off a piece of his body while we torture him.” Lawyer Keidar, on Bnei Brak-based Kol BaRamah radio, said that the prisoner is actually a mid-level terrorist. In an interview with Galei Yisrael radio, Keidar said, “There was no unusual incident, maybe a routine search.” However, on Kol BaRamah, he called the fighters “the salt of the earth.” Despite the sympathetic interviewer, Keidar admitted that there was “only a slight suspicion,” in contrast to his initial version that “it never happened.”

Likud lawmaker Tali Gotliv, known as “the angel who defends rapists,” returned to her days as a defense attorney, shouting into a megaphone that “it doesn’t matter what happened” because “this is about soldiers protecting us from terrorists from Nukhba.” In the background, someone shouted: “Immunity for fighters.” Likud lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky also supported the acts, saying in the Knesset: “When it’s about a terrorist from Nukhba, every act is legitimate.”

It is not clear whether there are any red lines or limits yet, but it must be emphasized: there are no justifications or extenuating circumstances for sexual abuse and rape. Anyone familiar with the military legal system knows that if it were possible to cover up the events in Sde Teiman, it would have been done. The only reason for the investigation is the gravity of the offense, and the state preferred to conduct an internal investigation rather than an international one.

The investigation must be thorough, but those who did not commit rape should not try to justify it or advance a narrative that legitimizes such behavior, leading us to moral decay as a society. This is not a question of left or right, but rather a basis for our lives. Do not remain silent.

Avoiding a clear statement against sexual assault and torture, or maintaining a neutral position for fear of upsetting someone, amounts to supporting and legitimizing such acts, which may extend beyond the boundaries of Sde Teiman.

The author, Sapir Sluzker Amran, is a human rights lawyer, a doctoral candidate in law at Bar-Ilan University, co-director of the organization “Breaking Walls” and a researcher at Harvard University.