A case to answer
Christopher Walker
Jerusalem
Cynical outsiders who expected the Israeli judicial inquiry into the Beirut massacre to whitewash the Begin govern- ment have been quickly proved wrong by the remarkably detailed, objective, fascinating and, at times, downright scep- tical investigation which is continuing in the unprepossessing surroundings of a cramped and heavily-guarded lecture hall on the campus of Jerusalem's Hebrew University.
Unlike the Agranat Commission, which heard all the evidence behind closed doors during its inquiry into Israel's military shortcomings during the 1973 war, the Kahan Commission (so named after its in- cisive chairman, Chief Justice Yitzhak Kahan) has so far heard 18 of its 42 original witnesses in public. An attempt early on by the Defence Minister, Reserve General Ariel Sharon, to shunt all but a rambling opening statement of self-justification into closed session was politely but firmly turned down by the panel, which also includes Aharon Barak, aged 45, Israel's most brilliant judge, and Yona Efrat, a retired general who has shown a willingness to put some politically explosive questions.
What started out in late October as a legalistic state examination of the ghastly events in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps between 16 and 18 September (where more than 800 Palestinian civilians were killed during a 48-hour orgy of revenge by gun, grenade and knife) has rapidly become transformed into a political time-bomb, now ticking away loudly under the ruling Likud coalition and its paper majority of 64 to 56 in the tenth Knesset. As one dovish supporter of the opposition Labour Party remarked with a faintly concealed smirk: 'Now everyone can see the real reason why they were so anxious that there should be no such investigation. Mr Begin and his friends were involved in a Watergate-style cover-up.'
As contradiction has followed contradic- tion, with minister accusing minister and senior officer accusing civil servant of 'lying' in all but name — the accepted euphemism has been the Hebrew for 'not telling the truth' — the initial reluctance of the Cabinet to undergo a full-scale in- vestigation is more easily understood. There are also those Israeli journalists — finding new strength as a result of the reversal of the Cabinet decision on the inquiry — who maintain that had there not been the eight- day delay between the end of the massacre and the setting-up of the commission, dur- ing which they were unfettered by the subsequent sub judice restrictions, less of the embarrassing truth might have emerged during the questioning. As it is, the hearings — conducted for the most part in legalistic Hebrew, occasion by army slang or a forced attenIPI at bonhomie by one of the witnesses -- have provided a field day for the oPIVnerintds of the Begin government at home 3., abroad. But with the completion of " final report still many weeks, if not months.; away it is still far too early to predict 11111,1r will prove the political undoing of Begin, or even that it will lessen his aPP-; to the Israeli voters. On the contrary' therh are many bitter opponents of Israel's silc,t, prime minister who fear that a darn report will give him just the opportunity has been eagerly awaiting to overcome °P'd position from his minority partners and hold an early election to capitalise on the vast popularity that he still enjoys in the vast
polls.
Even before the publication of the °till; troversial letters of warning last lanti.nt which informed nine of the most seniwto political and military witnesses — and',he the fury of government supporters, the public at large — that the findings c°11; 'harm' their standing, it was becorning °,0 vious that the government would have tr easy task in brushing aside the Orin! the consistencies which have dominate') public evidence. south The nine (unlike the jaunty 5,,-„4 Lebanese militia commander, Major Saari Haddad) were told, in effect, and at gre a length, that they are considered to haen. case to answer. At the pinnacle of resS)ot sibility, Mr Begin may be accused af.fd.. taking sufficient notice of what most YPtiy. dle East observers would see as the Patenen obvious danger that Christian miltttans let loose among unarmed palestinlain might go on the rampage — espeeiall00- the emotional aftermath of the ass,,,,s,,,sihir tion of their beloved leader, an Gemayel (who was blown to pieces bY, expertly planted bomb on 14 Septentberi.
more Mr Begin's position has been macle rrl-e of 4 difficult by the considerable volu evidence that he was not totally naive abuor the vicious internal blood feuds the Lebanon, and had in fact justifife:hicit Israeli push into West Beirut — 01. -,;gral the move into the camps was an 111-as part — precisely on the grounds that it needed to prevent communal bloodle ting. Statements which have been disclo:ra, for the first time during the hearing .Areo.rris ed the Prime Minister informing I" .0v, Draper, President Reagan's special en1;1 on 15 September, that the Israeli aril the moved into the western sector LA. Lebanese capital to prevent bloodse n't1) 'What I meant was acts of vengeanc i the hrePort on the World Service news of 1 )i,,tr showed that they do not intend to I , ir. I Me Minister's office. Apart from a I miZ intriguing aspect of the grisly affair !c14/4111. °us head of Mossad (his identity is ett,. Push into West Beirut, as in all Nos of the invasion of Lebanon, is Ariel y„3erations outside Israel, may well have tkienit Ore deeply implicated than has so far 'kited`° light in the public testimony. It was kori With interest last week that the ktiosied secret) has selected Dr Amnon Sot:erg, president of the Israel Bar h the.israell minister most closely involved lis btell whose standing in the opinion polls NI reover activities in Lebanon go back rritil/: Years — failed to warn the govern- kittit- full Hebrew name stands for 'In- ktt ie_ fors tate Security' and which in the diet's Yet known about how the agent iikte'c'ned or how the Mossad — whose 4101rly observers believe that the agency, r4)re anon, which revealed that a Mossad Prifit. they may make of dereliction of itt °I'b'Y operational arm of the Israeli in- %et, . e service which reports directly to (ieri-ishig piece of evidence from Major- Iiiieerb41 Amir Drori, the Israeli commander ),Cieuhe this line of inquiry in any finding 4t.r has so far remained shrouded in tlikj,`Y is the role played by the Mossad, the tvidh°C. Although there has been a lot of LCi_ace to indicate that. he made a ori'vtBc'ne call about events in Sabra camp I "e Saturday morning, the commission s 4ver; tk ng the hearings (a restricted pool of it Le ;Lave been permitted to take their places ptoreen plastic desks which have given hito-;ctungs the aspect of a macabre mass- ty flat) have privately expressed increduli- kit Mr Begin's claim that he heard to ‘iore I presumed that there were liable itii sentative was present in the Phalangist 4S, Mr Mr Begin, whose stumbling sio tr. the President-elect, was assas- ih:ted, and we saw all the grieving th u0tir Prime minister, would have to face :charges of currency violations which led reishi els husband's resignation. 'Of course,' itass'untute testimony represented one of his iNt convincing public appearances. 'Their Iilerti411d Post throughout the massacre, general, not only Phalangists.' thatak, the most persistent questioner and fat 7 made the politically lethal ruling ‘C,Iltistians against Muslims,' Mr Begin ex- iriei ''7thr,ao who, when he was attorney-general fIllngs. kiallgists. t .atl°n, to represent him during the ,°.e acts of vengeance by everyone.' 4lost of the foreign and Israeli reporters igene . round of the commission's pro- is after it had begun — and then only But also Phalangists?' interjected Judge has been involved in many controver- ` ministerial duty. ned to the commission. 'Christians in ing about the massacre until some 48 broke out with his assassination and °f the murderous potential of the Mrs Lea Rabin, wife of the then
much more badly hit during the proceedings of the commission than that of any of his Cabinet colleagues. The commis- sion's resolution, akin to an interim report, pointed out a number of sensitive areas where Sharon could eventually be found to have been in dereliction of duty. Like that of Yitzhak Shamir, the Foreign Minister and another aspiring political heir to Mr Begin, Sharon's evidence was directly contradicted on oath by the fourth and most junior Cabinet minister to be summoned, Morechai Zipori. The clash between the two men's testimony was made more interesting by the common knowledge in Israel that they are bitter political foes. Zipori, who was delighted at the opportunity offered to him to testify about Sharon in camera, is openly resentful that he was never pro- moted Defence Minister from his previous position as number two in the ministry. The mass of contradictions and conflicts in the sworn testimony will now be the sub- ject of further scrutiny as the commission goes through what could be the lengthy pro- cess of permitting witnesses or their lawyers to re-testify, cross-examine fellow witnesses and, in effect, establish a defence against any damaging findings.
During this period, those many interna- tional figures who do little to disguise their eagerness to see the back of Mr Begin and the ultra-hawkish attitudes he represents should beware of indulging in wishful thinking. The argument stressed time and time again by the ministerial witnesses that the main reason for using the Phalangists was to minimise the risk to Israeli soldiers — sounds a lot more convincing to the voters here than it does elsewhere.
Previous page
