Jury Rules Time’s Report on Sharon Was Incorrect; It Still Must Decide on Malice
NEW YORK — A jury Friday found that Time magazine was wrong when it reported in 1983 that former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon had discussed “the need . . . for revenge†with Lebanese leaders the day before Lebanese militia massacred hundreds of innocent Palestinians in September, 1982.
The decision, which came after more than 20 hours of deliberations, is the second of four tests that Sharon must pass to win his two-month-old libel trial against Time in U.S. District Court here.
Before Time is found to have committed libel, the six-person jury also must decide that the magazine acted with malice and that the story actually damaged Sharon’s reputation.
Primary Objective
After Friday’s verdict, however, Sharon attorney Milton Gould suggested that Sharon now has accomplished his primary objective in bringing the $50-million lawsuit: to exonerate himself politically.
“The verdict on this issue really represents a verdict on all the moral and historical issues in this case. . . . Not only is Sharon exonerated by the only kind of objective tribunal that we could figure out to carry it to, but the people of Israel who are charged with barbarity have been exonerated.
“What happens from now on,†Gould said, “only involves money.â€
Time Managing Editor Ray Cave refused to accept the jury’s verdict as final word that Time’s story was wrong. “We are confident that the story is true,†Cave said, declining to use the word “know.â€
Access to Documents
“We believe we could have proven that the paragraph was substantially true had we been given adequate access to secret Israeli documents and testimony,†he said, reading from a prepared statement.
The Israeli government restricted that access, and U.S. District Judge Abraham D. Sofaer still could dismiss the case on the technical grounds that Time has been denied due process.
The case centers on one paragraph in a February, 1983, Time cover story, in which Time said that Sharon “reportedly discussed with the Gemayels (the ruling family of Lebanon) the need for the Falangists (the Lebanese militia) to take revenge.†The conversation took place one day before Sharon allowed the Falangists to enter the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in West Beirut, where the Lebanese massacred as many as 800 Palestinian refugees, Time said.
Time also reported that details of Sharon’s discussion with the Gemayel family were contained in a secret Appendix B of the Israeli government’s Kahan Commission report, which investigated the massacre.
After hearing special written testimony from Yitzhak Kahan, chairman of the Israeli commission, Time conceded in court that it was wrong about Appendix B, and Monday--the same day the case went to the jury--it admitted that in the pages of the magazine.
On Wednesday, the jury decided that the paragraph was defamatory, agreeing with Sharon that in context it suggested that Sharon “consciously intended†the Falangists to massacre civilians in the camps. The jury also ruled that the defamatory statement was “aggravated†by Time’s erroneous claim about Appendix B.
In its verdict Friday, the jury found that Sharon had proved beyond any “substantial doubt†that he never discussed revenge with the Falangists.
“I’m glad that after this long struggle . . . that we have proved . . . that Time lied,†Sharon told reporters after the jury’s latest verdict. “They lied and they libeled and it was just a blood libel against me, against the state of Israel and against the Jewish people. It is a great moral victory.â€
And Gould, Sharon’s attorney, declared: “The issue in this case implicitly is not only that a responsible, decent human being would sit with self-appointed murderers and plan an outrage, but that the government of Israel would conspire to deceive the world†about it, by hiding details of the conversation in Appendix B. “It is that accusation that brought me into the case,†he said.
Time attorney Paul Saunders, however, disputed any claim of moral or political victory. “I don’t know what the moral and historical issues in the case are. The issues in the case are legal.â€
David Halevy, the Time correspondent chiefly responsible for the disputed paragraph, appeared tense as the jury returned to read its verdict. He said later: “It’s like George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ A lie is the truth, and the truth is a lie.â€
After rendering its partial verdict, the jury immediately resumed deliberating on the question of malice, recessing after three hours. Deliberations resume today.
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
