Image 01 Image 03

Jezebel: Evidence of Rasmea Odeh guilt “counter to a feminist understanding of rape culture”

Jezebel: Evidence of Rasmea Odeh guilt “counter to a feminist understanding of rape culture”

The facts of Rasmea’s guilt don’t care about the feelings of Rasmea’s leftist-Islamist supporters.

A coalition of the usual leftist-Islamist suspects is getting ready to give Rasmea Odeh a big farewell party in Chicago on August 12, 2017.

It’s a farewell party because just a few days later, on August 17, 2017, Rasmea will be sentenced in federal court in Detroit after a guilty plea to immigration fraud. By her plea agreement, Rasmea will be deported and will lose her U.S. citizenship, but will not serve any further jail time.

This farewell party is part of the continuing attempt to turn Rasmea into a social justice hero, as I documented in September 2015, The Sickening Deification of Rasmea Odeh.

Rasmea, readers will recall, failed to disclose on her immigration applications her 1970 conviction and imprisonment in Israel for a 1969 supermarket bombing that killed two Hebrew University students, Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner.

[Edward Joffe, overlooking Jerusalem]

[This photo of Leon overlooking Jerusalem was found in his camera at the supermarket bombing site – he never saw it.]

Rasmea concocted a defense that she falsely answered the questions because she was suffering from PTSD, which made her “filter” the plain wording.

At multiple levels that defense was as big a lie as her lies on her immigration forms, and in the plea agreement she admitted her false statements were not the result of PTSD or any other mental condition.If you need a refresher on the case, and Rasmea’s other nonsense claims, see our coverage of the guilty plea, Rasmea Odeh pleads guilty to immigration fraud, and follow up post, VIDEO: Terror victim’s brother says Rasmea Odeh supporters “have to eat their words”.

That PTSD defense, and Rasmea’s denial of involvement in the bombing, are based on Rasmea’s claim that she only was found guilty because of confession coerced through 25 days of sexual torture. As we demonstrated long ago, that claim is demonstrably false. Rasmea confessed one day after arrest (not after 25 days), making her narrative of her confession factually impossible.

Why would Rasmea lie about the 25-day narrative? The prosecution laid out its theory in court filings, and it makes a lot of sense, Prosecution Theory of Rasmea Odeh’s Incentive To Lie About Being Tortured into Confessing:

• Evidence of the Defendant’s Motive to Falsely Claim Torture. While at first blush it might seem unlikely that someone would falsely claim, over a period of more than forty years to have been tortured, Odeh in fact has a strong motivation to do so. Terrorist groups routinely train their operatives, in the event of capture, to claim torture. As noted, Odeh’s membership in the PFLP and role in the bombing would serve to establish her motive for falsely claiming torture, because by confessing and causing the arrests of numerous confederates she undermined the mission of the PFLP. For example, according to testimony during her trial in Israel, the defendant compromised the PFLP by providing the names of more than 80 terrorists who were then arrested by Israeli officials.7 [emphasis added]

7 “[S]he [the defendant] provided names of others related to the network such as Ali Kassim, Aliya Khuri, the Attorney Bashir Alhiri the attorney, Abdel Hafiz Jaber, and the following day of Yakub Odeh, who is her cousin. . . During the same week of investigation the incident in the cafeteria in East Jerusalem took place. Thanks to her we’ve also gotten to the cafeteria, because she knew of the plans before getting arrested and she provided the names of the people who may have carried it out. She cooperated with me throughout the travels. She worked with me for 6 days of oral interrogation. Led me to places. Thanks to her we’ve arrested over 80 people; Shkhem, Ramallah as well as Hebron, Bet-Lehem and the whole (West) Bank[.]” See Israeli Trial Transcript, Bates Number 721.

In other words, Rasmea ratted out an entire terrorist network, leading to 80 arrests. She needed the 25-day torture narrative to justify this betrayal of her fellow terrorists.

There also was a mountain of independent evidence against Rasmea, as I presented in November 2014, Rasmea Odeh rightly convicted of Israeli supermarket bombing and U.S. immigration fraud.

Among that mountain of evidence is video statements by two of Rasmea’s co-conspirators, directly implicating Rasmea in the bombings.

Rasmea continued to insist on a trial on the immigration charge until the feds called her bluff. In February 2017, prosecutors sought court permission to take testimony from Rasmea’s co-conspirators, who now reside in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, for use at the then scheduled May 2017 trial.

Fearing a trial at which she would be convicted of immigration fraud, and at which her claim of innocence of terrorist murder would be eviscerated, Rasmea copped a plea. The deal offered Rasmea was substantively similar to one she rejected two years earlier, despite claims by her supporters that she got a better deal.

Nonetheless, Rasmea’s supporters are sticking with her story because Rasmea is a convenient “intersectional” tool to use against Israel.

A good example of the excuses being made for Rasmea appears in an article at Jezebel. The article ostensibly is about defending Linda Sarsour, a big supporter of Rasmea. But there is a paragraph in the Jezebel article that jumped out at me, The Demonization of Linda Sarsour (emphasis added):

Similarly, another Times op-ed written by Shire criticizing the Women’s March for alienating Zionists found the March’s inclusion of Palestinian activist Rasmea Odeh troubling. Shire described Odeh as a “convicted terrorist” and a criminal, but what her piece failed to mention about Odeh is that Israeli police obtained her confession to a deadly bombing in West Jerusalem by threatening to force her father to rape her—and then tortured and raped her after her confession anyway. Odeh attempted to recant her confession in military court a month later, but it was ignored, and upon her release from prison she spoke against her mistreatment at the United Nations. Odeh became a lawyer and immigrant rights activist and relocated to America, but her political activism and the label as a terrorist followed her; in 2013 she was arrested for a low-level felony for failing to offer the details on her previous run-ins with the law on her naturalization forms and now faces deportation. Anti-Sarsour liberals have grabbed onto an argument presented by a conservative legal scholar that dismisses Odeh’s allegations of sexual assault and torture—a claim that runs counter to a feminist understanding of rape culture and the criminal justice system.

That last sentence links to my post, Rasmea Odeh prosecutors: At new trial, we’ll prove Rasmea was a terrorist.

What intrigued me most was the notion that the evidence the prosecution said it would present, and the evidence I’ve presented that Rasmea’s confession narrative was factually impossible, should be dismissed because that evidence “runs counter to a feminist understanding of rape culture and the criminal justice system.” Maybe your “feminist understanding” is wrong as applied to the specific case of Rasmea, since the real world facts and evidence contradict it.

Ben Shapiro famously has stated: “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

And so it is with Rasmea’s supporters, enablers and excusers. The facts show Rasmea killed two students in a supermarket bombing, and lied about it to enter the U.S. and obtain U.S. citizenship.

The facts of Rasmea’s guilt don’t care about your feelings.

[Featured Image: Video: Justice, At Last, for Rasmea Odeh]]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



I’m wondering if any of those 80 odd people she ratted out have any old scores to settle with her on her return?

Be a pity if anything untoward happened to her wouldn’t it.

If police arrested a woman holding a knife in one hand and her husbands severed head in the other, the headline at Jezebel would read “Stupid Man Ruins Woman’s Weekend.”

What does “runs counter to a feminist understanding of rape culture and the criminal justice system” even mean?

    Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | August 9, 2017 at 8:48 pm


    And if by some strange chance a women did manage to kill a man somehow, then of course the man deserved it, and anyone who doubts that is a misogynist racist knuckle-dragging fascist.

People are blinded by their ignorance and egos.
That’s why there will always be a war started by fascists – and enabled by the ignorant and egocentric – that free people must always defend.

Updated: Tensions Rise Over Mural in Arab Bakery:

I don’t understand this world. Why hasn’t she been executed for blowing up two people?

    Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | August 10, 2017 at 1:01 am

    Because her leftist supporters AND their enablers in the Democrat party are GLAD that she killed two members of a group that they consider to be their enemies.

    If she had said an unkind word to a transgender man who claimed he had a vagina, they would be falling all over themselves to denounce her.

      Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | August 10, 2017 at 1:11 am

      Um, what has the Democrat Party got to do with it? There’s nothing the USA could do to her for her murders; she didn’t commit them here. It’s Israel that should have executed her 48 years ago.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | August 10, 2017 at 1:09 am

    Because Israel has only used capital punishment once, and its legal establishment is hostile to ever using it again. This week both the prime minister, the defense minister, the attorney general, and several other cabinet ministers expressed the opinion that military prosecutors should seek the death penalty for the terrorist who did this, but the Military Advocate General said they won’t do it.

    “The policy of law enforcement agencies in Israel is not to demand the death penalty…That remains unchanged.” In Israel, by order of the self-selected supreme court, government policy is set by the legal establishment, not by the elected government, and the government is too timid to take them on.

So, if ideology conflicts with evidence, what sort of solution would you expect?

John Kenneth Galbraith is far from my favorite economist, but this quote remains golden: “In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there’s no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.”