Battling over a Paragraph

By James Kelly

Ariel Sharon's libel suit against Time Inc. goes to trial

It was the second day of Federal Case 83 Civ. 4660, Ariel Sharon vs. Time Inc. The wood-paneled courtroom in lower Manhattan was crowded but hushed as the plaintiff took the stand. "My parents were people who fought for the truth that they believed," said Sharon, the former Defense Minister of Israel. "And defending the truth, defending your truth, your people's truth, that was also what brought me here, 6,000 miles away from home, to this American court." Earlier, Time Inc.'s lawyers had presented the case differently. Sharon's lawsuit, they argued, "is part of an attempt by a foreign politician to justify his conduct of war by his state and enhance his political reputation."

So began Sharon's $50 million lawsuit against Time Inc. last week. Sharon has charged that TIME magazine libeled him in a February 1983 cover story about an official Israeli report on the 1982 massacre of some 700 Arabs in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps outside Beirut. The killings, which followed the assassination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel, were done by Christian Phalangist militiamen. The article extensively quoted the published report, which, among other things, found that then Defense Minister Sharon bore "indirect" responsibility for what had happened in the camps.

At the heart of Sharon's suit is a paragraph in the TIME story that described a condolence call that Sharon paid to the Gemayel family the day after Bashir's death. According to the passage, a classified appendix to the report contained information about the visit. TIME went on to say that Sharon "reportedly discussed with the Gemayels the need for the Phalangists to take revenge" for Bashir's assassination, but added that "the details of the conversation are not known."

Sharon, who resigned his Defense post two days after the release of the report, says that he did meet with the Gemayel family. But he denies that they discussed revenge. He contends, moreover, that the secret appendix, which remains classified, does not say he talked about revenge with the Gemayels. Sharon insists that the TIME statements suggest that he encouraged or condoned the murders, and that the magazine has injured his political reputation and committed a "blood libel" against Israel. Sharon currently serves as his country's Minister of Industry and Trade.

Time Inc. argues that Sharon's interpretation of the paragraph distorts its intended meaning. It contends that the magazine's account of the meeting is correct, and did not damage Sharon's reputation. In a motion filed last month to dismiss the case, Time Inc.'s attorneys invoked the act of state doctrine, which holds that a U.S. court is not the proper place to debate the actions of a foreign government. They added that the refusal of the Israeli government to release key documents, including the disputed appendix, made a fair trial impossible. U.S. District Court Judge Abraham Sofaer denied Time Inc.'s motion. He ruled, however, that one of Sharon's claims, that TIME has a "vicious bias" against Jews or Israel, "is so unsubstantiated that no evidence will be allowed."

Both sides are represented by well-known New York City law firms: Sharon by Shea & Gould, and Time Inc. by Cravath, Swaine & Moore. The former Defense Minister first filed suit in Israel shortly after the article appeared. In June 1983 Sharon sued in New York because he felt, according to his lawyers, that only a victory in U.S. courts would fully vindicate him. The two sides have thus far taken depositions from 27 people, including 13 TIME staff members. The Israeli government has refused on security grounds to allow Time Inc.'s attorneys to depose a number of army and intelligence officials.

As Sharon sat on a front bench, his wife Lili with him, Judge Sofaer began the trial by instructing the six-person jury on the legal definition of libel. Drawing upon U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what a public figure must show to prove "actual malice," Sofaer said Sharon's lawyers must demonstrate not only that the TIME paragraph was "false and defamatory" but that the magazine published it with "conscious awareness of falsity or with serious doubts as to the truth."

In his two-hour opening statement, Milton Gould, Sharon's attorney, reviewed Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and defended Sharon's decision to allow the Phalangist militiamen to enter the camps on the ground that Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists were still hiding there. Gould said he would prove that TIME Jerusalem Correspondent David Halevy, who reported on Sharon's meeting with the Gemayels, had "contrived" the details and that the TIME staff had failed to verify the reporting. According to his deposition, Halevy had three primary but confidential sources for his report.

Thomas Barr, Time Inc.'s chief attorney, vigorously defended Halevy and the other staffers in a four-hour opening statement. Barr showed newspaper and magazine articles to support his claim that the Defense Minister had been severely criticized in the press before TIME'S article was published. Barr also quoted warnings about the Phalangists' violent reputation, including Israeli Lieut. General Rafael Eitan's statement to the Israeli Cabinet before the massacre that the militiamen would enter the camps and "have just one thing left to do, and that is revenge." As for the proper interpretation of the disputed paragraph, Barr said he would leave it up to the jury to determine that "TIME didn't try to imply something it didn't say."

As the trial's first witness, Sharon described his upbringing and his rise through Israeli army ranks from private to general. Sharon also defended his respect for civilian lives throughout his military career. This week Sharon is expected to talk about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the events surrounding the massacre. Then the cross-examination by Time Inc.'s attorneys will begin.

--By James Kelly.

Reported by Kenneth W. Banta/New York

With reporting by Kenneth W. Banta