![\"Share](\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/buttons\/share-medium.png\")
By ARI AFILALO<\/p>\n
(JTA)\u00a0— Israel’s State Archives last week released the previously classified minutes of a 1983 Cabinet meeting during which the government debated the Kahan Commission\u2019s recommendation to fire Defense Minister Ariel Sharon on account of the Sabra and Shatila massacre.<\/p>\n
The killings had taken place some months before, on Sept. 16, 1982, when 150 fighters of the Lebanese Christian Phalanges entered two Palestinian refugee camps and massacred 700 to 800 residents. The Israel Defense Forces, which controlled the area, allowed the Lebanese forces access to the camp.<\/p>\n
The Kahan Commission blamed Sharon and senior Israeli officers, finding that they consciously disregarded the risk that the Christian fighters would seek revenge for the murder of their leader. It recommended that Sharon resign or else the Cabinet should fire him.<\/p>\n
The dramatic proceedings give us a fascinating snapshot of Sharon, Prime Minister Menachem Begin and their handling of core Jewish and Israeli dilemmas.<\/p>\n
Sharon made an impassioned argument for the Cabinet to reject the commission’s recommendations.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are talking about a lot more than the question of whether Sharon should go or not go,\u201d he said. \u201cThe [commission\u2019s] conclusions are grave for Israel and the entire Jewish people \u2026 They implicate all of those seated here, including Mr. Prime Minister.\u201d<\/p>\n
The commission \u201cdid not hesitate to draw a parallel between Israel and the indirect accomplices to pogroms against the people of Israel,\u201d Sharon said. If the government upheld its findings, it would give \u201cthose who wish us evil\u201d a homegrown basis to say that the Jews too are capable of \u201cgenocide\u201d and would stain Israel with the indelible \u201cmark of Cain.\u201d<\/p>\n
In what quickly became known as the \u201cbourekas speech,\u201d Sharon told his colleagues that their choice was between their individual interests and the country’s.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you chop off my head \u2026 you will be still sitting here next week enjoying the bourekas [filled pastries served at the government meeting],\u201d he told them, \u201cbut you would have betrayed the Jews.\u201d<\/p>\n
The meeting had all the core ingredients of the Israeli-Zionist drama: Should we apply universal principles of democratic governance or account for the particulars of the Jewish condition (we have so few allies that we accept them as they are)? Should we be expected to fight fair and maintain the \u201cpurity of our weapons\u201d in a cruel neighborhood? How do brothers in arms judge each other when one falls short of the highest ethics and the world stands ready to condemn us?<\/p>\n
These themes came to a crescendo when Begin told Sharon that he would vote against him. Here was a man whose connection to the Sharon family literally dated back to his birth. Sharon\u2019s grandmother was the midwife who delivered baby Begin at Brest Litovsk in the Old Country.<\/p>\n
Begin had survived the Soviet gulag, the Nazis, the shelling of the Altalena, nearly three decades in the opposition, seven elections as the head of the losing party and Ben-Gurion\u2019s unbending animosity. And here he sat, confessing to being \u201cbroken-hearted,\u201d looking at an Israeli-born hero who had previously been thought of as his natural successor and deciding to follow principles of universalism and democracy.<\/p>\n
\u201cBelieve me when I say that I speak from profound pain,\u201d Begin told Sharon. \u201cI have not slept all night. Woe to this night . But we have no choice but to accept all of the recommendations of the commission. This is the judgment. We accepted the judgment when we appointed the commission. There is no other alternative.\u201d<\/p>\n
This was vintage Begin — emotional, authentic, profoundly Jewish. He did not say, \u201cThis is the law,\u201d because it was not the law. He used the word \u201cdin,\u201d connoting one of the attributes of God when sitting in strict judgment. There was no place for the balancing attribute of \u201crahamim,\u201d or mercy.<\/p>\n
Begin chose to uphold Israel’s good name as a democracy and reject Sharon\u2019s argument that he should stand with the Jews in combat. Right before telling Sharon that he had made up his mind, Begin stared at him silently and confessed in his trademark fatherly demeanor, \u201cWhen you smile with this tad of sarcasm, I am disarmed and can no longer be your accuser.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI only smile when I am shaken up and confused,\u201d Sharon replied.<\/p>\n
This was the sabra moment par excellence, the tough outer shell peeled back to reveal the soft core where the Jewish soul struggles with the mighty questions of the Zionist enterprise. And yet, when push came to shove, Begin did the right thing. He chose the rule of law. The only question was whether the military had acted lawlessly by recklessly disregarding the risk. A commission headed by the chief justice found that it did, and Begin would stand behind it.<\/p>\n
We Jews often ask ourselves, \u201cWhat will the gentiles think?\u201d Begin gave us the answer: If we trust in the strength of our democracy, it does not matter.<\/p>\n
There are voices at the highest level of the Israeli government who complained recently that movies like \u201cThe Gatekeepers\u201d or \u201c5 Broken Cameras\u201d — two failed Oscar contenders that offered scathing critiques of Israeli military policy — only fuel the narrative of hostile voices.<\/p>\n
They would be wise to heed the words of former Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who famously said that we must fight with \u201cone arm tied behind our back,\u201d a democratic combatant in a sea of sharks. Despite the particularities of our condition, we will only win if we truly learn that skill.<\/p>\n
As to Sharon, we all know that the people of Israel wound up forgiving him enough to elect him twice to the premiership. Perhaps they forgot Sabra and Shatila. Or perhaps, because Begin preserved the soul of the country when he judged him with din, he created the possibility that we could judge him years later with rahamim.<\/p>\n
(Ari Afilalo is\u00a0a professor of international law at Rutgers Law School.)<\/em><\/p>\n