Part of Sharon Story in Error, Time Concedes

Time magazine conceded Wednesday that it was wrong in one key portion of its 1983 cover story that is now the center of the $50-million libel suit brought by former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon.

Time admitted that the exclusive information it said linked Sharon to the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in West Beirut was not contained in a secret appendix to an Israeli government report on the massacre. It still contends, however, that the rest of what it said about Sharon in the story is true.

Time’s concession came immediately after U.S. District Court Judge Abraham D. Sofaer allowed controversial testimony from Israel about the appendix into evidence. During a portion of the day’s testimony, the judge barred the press and public from the courtroom, an action the news media formally protested.

The magazine’s concession still leaves the jury with several key issues to decide, and it was unclear precisely what effect the concession might have on the outcome of the case.

First, the six-person panel must interpret the meaning of the paragraph in Time’s story that is the focus of the case.

The pagragraph reads: “One section of the report known as Appendix B was not published at all, mainly for security reasons. That section contains the names of several intelligence agents referred to elsewhere in the report. Time has learned that it also contains further details about Sharon’s visit to the Gemayel family on the day after Bashir Gemayel’s assassination. Sharon reportedly told the Gemayels that the Israeli army would be moving into West Beirut and that he expected the Christian forces to go into the Palestinian refugee camps. Sharon also reportedly discussed with the Gemayels the need for the Falangists to take revenge for the assassination of Bashir, but the details are not known.”

Sharon argues that the paragraph in effect accuses him of instigating or at least knowingly encouraging the massacre of 700 Palestinian refugees by Lebanese Christian militia in September, 1982.

If the jury concludes that the paragraph has a less condemnatory meaning--which is what Time argues--Time will be the victor. If the jury agrees with Sharon’s interpretation of the paragraph, it then must decide whether the paragraph is untrue and, if so, whether Time printed it either knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard of the truth.

Months of Negotiations

Time’s concession Wednesday followed months of negotiations between Judge Sofaer and the Israeli government over the granting of some sort of access to the secret appendix.

The Israeli Parliament agreed last week to allow former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Kahan to review the documents in the presence of attorneys for Time and Sharon and to answer in writing three questions about the documents from Judge Sofaer.

Kahan’s written answers said that the documents contained no mention of discussions between Lebanese leaders and Sharon about the need for revenge against Palestinians, as Time had reported. But Time’s attorney in Israel, Haim Zadok, objected to Kahan’s findings, contending that certain key materials attached to the appendix were excluded from Kahan’s review.

Under the agreement with the Israeli government, Time was constrained from making the details of those objections public. So when Sofaer Wednesday had those objections read to the jury, he ordered the courtroom emptied of all observers, including the news media, in order, he said, to comply with the agreement with Israel.

Directed Verdict Sought

When court was reopened, Sharon’s attorneys asked Sofaer to issue a directed verdict on that part of their case alleging that Time was wrong about what was in the appendix. Despite the still secret objections of its lawyer, Time conceded the point.

Attorneys for several major news organizations had a hearing with the judge later in the day to protest Sofaer’s closing of the courtroom and his intention to also hold in secret any part of the closing arguments relating to Time’s objections.

Some constitutional lawyers and media spokesmen who were reached for comment said Sofaer’s action in closing the courtroom could set a bad precedent. However, the judge’s agreement with Israeli officials was so unusual that it might never reoccur in any other case, they said.

Jack Landau, an attorney and executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said: “I doubt that Sofaer had the right to make an agreement with the Israeli government and override the rights of Americans to witness a trial.”

However, Landau noted that the Israeli government voluntarily waived its own laws, at the request of both sides, to provide at least some information it had kept secret from its own citizens, and thus Sofaer’s intention to prevent further disclosures “may not be unreasonable.”

Last month Time promised the Israeli government, and announced publicly, that it would print a retraction or correction if it found that the secret appendix did not contain what Time had reported.

Wednesday, however, Time spokesman Michael Luftman suggested that Time would not print any correction until the jury renders a verdict.

Sofaer recessed the trial early Wednesday because of a juror’s illness. Closing arguments are to begin today, followed by the judge’s instructions to the jury. The case could go to the jury by week’s end.