Moshe Katsav Case

Introducing Abstract Argumentation with Many Lives

Guilty: Moshe Katsav
  • A. from the Ministry of Tourism: 2 cases of rape and indecent assault.
  • H. from the President's Residence: Sexual harassment.
  • L. from the President's Residence: Indecent act, sexual harassment and obstruction of justice.

A. from the Ministry of Tourism

  • The first charge relates to the work period of Katsav as Minister of Tourism and to Complainant A., who served in a senior position in his office during the relevant period.
  • In this charge, A. accuses Katsav of committing a rape offense on two occasions: one in Katsav's office in Tel Aviv in April 1998, and the second at the Plaza Hotel in Jerusalem on June 17, 1998.
  • In addition, Katsav is charged with an offense of indecent assault which was committed in the apartment of A.

Supporting evidence

At first, Katsav complained of an attempt to blackmail him by A., due to her threats of filing a sexual harassment complaint, however, the testimonies of A.'s statements regarding the violation of her by Katsav in real time, deny the claims raised by Katsav.
In this context we note the testimony of Shaul Halali, who spoke with Katsav, at the request of A., before her dismissal, in order to try to improve the atmosphere that prevailed in the office.
A. told Halali that she was "very upset" because Katsav "sends long hands".
Not only did he meet Katsav in his office, but Katsav even phoned him the day after the meeting in order to ascertain his impression.
When Katsav's response to his testimony was requested, he denied, with ostentatious contempt, his meeting with Halali, as well as his conversation with him, even though his defense counsel had to admit afterwards that the meeting was held, since it was mentioned in the letter of dismissal, Written by Katsav himself.
We shall also mention the testimony of Shmuel Tzurel, who served at the relevant times in a senior position in the Ministry of Tourism, who told the court that A. told him that Katsav was sexually harassing her.
When Tzurel appealed to the director-general of the ministry, even without mentioning the content of A.'s complaint regarding the sexual harassment of Katsav, so that the latter would talk to A., he was reprimanded by Katsav who saw his interference with great severity.
A special importance was attributed to the testimony of Attorney Ben-Tovim, to whom A. applied the day after her dismissal by Katsav, who told the court that A. told him: "The Minister harassed her sexually and that she felt that her work came to an end because she did not agree with him".
Attorney Ben-Tovim confirmed that he had "blocked his ears" from hearing about the sexual issue, even though he understood that it was more than sexual harassment, but he wrote a copy of A.'s statement, which he kept in a safe and presented to the court at the testimony.
Other statements by A. regarding her sexual harassment by Katsav long before the affair broke out were heard by Dror Nissan, Yaron Armoza, Dr. Michal Sela, Ilana Dayan and others.
All of the above statements, which came from A.'s mouth at the time of the events, contradict Katsav's contention that this is a later invention in order to get revenge.

H. from the President's Residence

  • H. accuses Katsav of three frontal hugs in 2003 when he served as president aswell as sexual harassment while exploiting authority.
  • H. claimed all along in her statements to the police about the hugs. In her version, these are hugs of an intimate nature, in which Katsav pressed her against his chest. H. insisted that she told Katsav after the first two hugs that they were not in her favor and asked him to stop it, but Katsav continued and hugged her again for the third time. Additionally, her testimony was consistent with her statements to the police and the State Attorney's Office, and was noted for her minority, caution and precision, as well as the fact that she did not want to complain against Katsav, and was dragged into this case when she did not wish for it.

Supporting evidence

  • Further reinforcement of the existence of sexual significanced hugs were found, in testimonies of "similar acts" which came from the words of L., N.A. and N.R. who also had a similar experience of hug, while they worked for Katsav. These testimonies serve to reinforce Katsav's intentions and reject the following argument from his mouth about a random and innocent hug.
  • Various victims described a man who was close to Katsav, helping him to terrorize the victims and lead them into his arms.

L. from the President's Residence

  • In the third charge we are dealing with the embraces that the defendant embraced L., who was 25 when she worked in the President's Residence and was subordinate to his authority, as well as statements of sexual content he had told her. In respect of these, the defendant is charged with offenses of indecent assault, as well as sexual harassment offenses while exploiting authority and labor relations.
  • The indictment alleges that during the working meetings held by the Defendant with L., while the two were in solitary confinement, the Defendant used to make personal remarks to her. So he told her that she is "cute" because she has "beautiful eyes" that she "looks beautiful today" because she is "dressed beautifully today" and so on.
  • The main point of the indictment relates to December 25, 2005, the date on which the defendant's 60th birthday party was held. L., who assisted in its organization, entered the defendant's office for the purpose of coordinating the final details. At the end of the meeting, she wished him a happy birthday. The defendant got up, told her that she deserved a hug, approached her and held her for a long time, pressing her body against his body, even tilting his face to her neck, to smell her, for sexual arousal. L., who was surprised by the defendant's act, left the office when she was upset and crying.

Supporting evidence

  • We can learn from N.R.'s, N.A.'s and H. testimonies of the defendant's practice of embracing the young women who are subject to him in unusual embraces. From N.A. We heard that he had hugged her on his birthday. After refusing to give him a kiss, he even asked her what she would do if he reached her room in the hotel, because of the question she canceled her participation in the conference she was about to take part in. The witness N.R. was also under the authority of the defendant, and told the court about two hugs that the defendant had embraced her. One hug by side, by the window and another, this time in front of her, when he returned from abroad. The defendant even called her in the evening and introduced himself as "Moshe" and offered to come visit her.
  • Various victims who did not know about each other described a pattern of repetitive harassment, whereby the initiation of "courtship" and an attempt to get close to the victims would begin in the offender's library and then continue in other places.

Modeling the argument

  • Who VS who - The three complainants (A., H. and L.) against Moshe Katsav.
  • Goal - To convict Katsav of significant offenses with actual imprisonment.
  • Thanks to our article, we can now present the argument using a network of signs.
  • S - The participants in the case.
  • R - Who VS who, that is, the accusers against the accused.
  • M - Life, the more life a participant has, the harder it is to "kill" him.
  • K - The power of the attack.
  • βm - A bonus of 1 attack power, when there are more than m accusers, we assign m=1 (we will get to it later on).
  • The full formula:

The plea bargain: June 28, 2007

Demonstration 1

We ask the question, why 10 - 5 - 3 = 1?


  • Katsav, who was working as the president at that time was a very powerful person, so we shall give him a high amount of life: 10.
  • Back in 2007 due to problems in the schedule of A.'s testimony and difficulties in finding a proof required for proving rape, the prosecution decided it would be better to go for a plea bargain.
  • The plea bargain was very lenient for Katsav, in which he did not receive a prison sentence but only two years probation. Katsav was charged by A. only for indecent assault (see above) and by L. for sexual harassment.
  • It is seen from the deal that Katsav was not far from getting an active prison sentence, and that if Katsav had not been the president, he would have actually been arrested.
  • If we wanted to define our purpose in another way, for example only to convict him, we would place a lower value on the life of Katsav.
  • Due to the severity of A.'s accusation against Katsav and the allegations of two rapes that were not part of the plea bargain, we defined the power of A.'s attack against Katsav as 5.
  • In the plea bargain L. accused Katsav of sexual harassment, that was considered lesser offenses than indecent assaults and rape suspicions, so we defined the power of L.'s attack on Katsav about one-third of Katsav's life.
  • Since there are similar charges from 2 complainants we assume that the total attack strength will be slightly greater so we add 1 more to the overall attack strength: 5 + 3 + 1 = 9.

Calculation of life after attack

Calculation of Life


  • Katsav's Life: Starting life (10) minus* [Addition of β (1) if there's more than 1 accuser (m=1) + delta of kroncker (1) multiplied by the attack power of L. on Katsav (3) + delta of kroncker (1) multiplied by the attack power of A. on Katsav (5)] = 1. *What's inside the brackets must be less than or equal to the starting life of the accused.
  • No one attacks the complainants, the complainants have already given their testimonies, so the delta of each is 1.
  • From here we showed that Katsav is still "alive", meaning that the charges were not strong enough to put him in jail.
  • At the opening of his trial on April 8, 2008, in which Katsav had to admit the suspicions attributed to him, his lawyers announced that Katsav had rejected the plea bargain.
  • Katsav had a very easy plea bargain, but one of the victims announced that she intended to speak out in front of the court and asked to describe her horrors. Apparently, Katsav was very concerned about this, especially standing before judges showing the full description of his crimes, which would apparently have reached the media, would have further stigmatized his name, and perhaps even his supporters would have avoided him. Therefore, it is believed that this was one of the reasons for Katsav's decision to reject the plea bargain.

Sentence: On 30 December 2010

Demonstration 2

We ask the question, why Katsav has 10 life if before he had 1?


  • Each sentence or plea bargain is essentially a rearrangement of all the factors. Therefore, we will use a new network in which Katsav's life remains 10. Moreover, more and more new supporting evidence has been added as well as the accuser H.
  • In 2010, Katsav was convicted by the Tel Aviv court of two rape offenses and an indecent assault of A. from the Tourism Ministry, A sexual harassment of A. from the President's Residence, For offenses of indecent assault and sexual harassment of L. from the President's Residence and for the offense of obstructing court proceedings when he tried to coordinate versions with L. from the President's Residence.
  • Would Katsav be in prison only from A.'s indictment? The indictment of two cases of rape and the commission of an indecent act is a very serious charge, but we speak of former President Moshe Katsav and there was no such precedent before in the State of Israel. It is doubtful that only A's attack on Katsav would be enough. For example, people would ask themselves - why would the former head of the council, a minister in the Israeli government and president of the state innocent so far, decide to rape Mrs. A.? From here we define A's attack on Katsav as 9, a tiny amount less of Katsav's life.
  • H. accused Katsav of sexual harassment. A slight offense relative to the rest. Let's define the power of the attack at 3.
  • L. accuses Katsav of committing an indecent act, sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. Although the offenses are difficult but relative to the indictment of A. These are lighter offenses but their power(H --> Katsav) is greater than the charge of H., Therefore: We define the attack power of L. as 5, between the strength of A. and H' attack.
  • Since there are similar charges from 3 complainants, we assume that the total attack strength will be slightly greater so we add another 1 to the total attack strength: 9 + 3 + 5 + 1 = 18 > the life of Katsav. Therefore, the intensity of the attack = 10.


  • The life of Katsav after the attack: Starting life (10) minus* [Addition of β (1) if there is more than one accuser (m = 1) + Kroncker Delta (1) multiplied by the attack power of L. on Katsav (5) + Kroncker Delta (1) multiplied by the attack power of H. on Katsav (3) + Kroncker Delta (1) multiplied by the attack power of A. on Katsav (9)] = 0. *What's inside the brackets must be less than or equal to the life of the attacked.
  • No one attacks the complainants, the complainants have already given their testimonies, so the delta of each one is 1.
  • From here we saw that Katsav was "dead", meaning that the charges were strong enough to put him in jail and indeed he received seven years in prison.
  • Epilogue: The judges noted that Katsav's alibi was refuted and his testimony was "laced with lies". As a result, he was the only president of the State of Israel convicted in the trial. On March 22, 2011, the District Court sentenced Katsav to seven years in prison, two years probation and 125,000 NIS refund for the complainants.