(2 of 5)
Sharon admits that he met with the Gemayels but denies that the topic of revenge came up. He has argued, publicly and in court, that TIME's paragraph in effect accused him of encouraging the massacre. TIME contends that the disputed passage does not accuse Sharon of fomenting the slaughter. The magazine further maintains that the paragraph's only meaning is that the subject of revenge came up in a talk between Sharon and the Phalangists and that it implies that the former Defense Minister must have been aware of the dangers of sending the militiamen into the camps without supervision by Israeli forces.
David Halevy, a TIME correspondent in Jerusalem, has testified that he relied on four sources for his reporting that revenge was discussed at Sharon's meeting with the Gemayels in the Lebanese town of Bikfaya. These sources included an Israeli intelligence officer with access to notes taken at the meeting who told Halevy that Bashir's father had declared to Sharon that his son's death should be avenged. Halevy also said that another source, an Israeli general, informed him that Sharon told Phalangist leaders that same day that Bashir's murder was a "Palestinian-Syrian conspiracy" and that the act "should not be left without retaliation, reprisal or reaction of some kind." Halevy explained that he deduced from talks with Israeli officials, and from the report, that this information was in Appendix B. From these sources he knew that the notetakers at Sharon's meetings had been listed in the appendix and that they had been called to testify in closed session before the commission.
TIME's sources for what was said at those meetings remain confidential, but as recently as two weeks ago they confirmed once again to TIME that revenge had been discussed. TIME pointed out that the question of whether the testimony is located in Appendix B or elsewhere is relatively immaterial and in no way undercuts the magazine's contention that revenge came up during the meetings and is irrelevant to the issue of whether what TIME reported was libelous.
The events of last week climaxed nine months of often frustrating negotiations between Sofaer and the Israeli government to gain access to classified materials. Under the revised terms proposed by Sofaer in early November, two Israeli lawyers, one representing Time Inc. and the other Sharon, would review the documents alone with Kahan. Kahan, in consultation with the two lawyers, would then answer whether the documents "contain any evidence or suggestion" that Sharon discussed revenge with the Phalangists or "knew in advance that the Phalangists would massacre civilians" in the camps. Time's attorneys said that the magazine would print an appropriate correction if the examination of the documents showed that the information in the disputed paragraph was incorrect.
But Israeli officials refused to grant access to all the documents requested by Sofaer. The Israelis also demanded that the attorneys for both sides promise to keep secret the contents of those documents that were reviewed.