Debate Continues Among Legal Experts As to Whether Sharon’s Resignation Fulfills the Recommendation

Attorney General Yitzhak Zamir’s view, that Ariel Sharon’s resignation as Defense Minister was an adequate fulfillment of the recommendation by the commission of inquiry, was criticized today by a number of legal experts and by Israel’s two leading independent morning papers, Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. Both papers, in editorials written in advance of the Knesset meeting called to act on the Cabinet’s decision yesterday that Sharon remain as Minister Without-Portfolio, attacked the Cabinet’s decision and challenged Zamir’s view. Academic jurists, including former Supreme Court Justice Zvai Berenson, also contended that Sharon ought to resign from the Cabinet altogether in full compliance with the commission’s recommendation.

The commission stated that Sharon should “draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office ” at the time of the massacre at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps in west Beirut. The commission recommended further that should Sharon fail to draw the appropriate conclusions, the Prime Minister should “consider whether” to dismiss him from the Cabinet under the appropriate section of the law.

Zamir held that by relinquishing his defense portfolio, although staying on in the Cabinet, Sharon had drawn the conclusions and thus Premier Menachem Begin was justified in deciding that he need not dismiss Sharon altogether. This was implicit in the latitude the commission gave Begin to “consider whether” to dismiss him, the Attorney General said.

SOME LEGAL EXPERTS DIFFER WITH ZAMIR

But some legal experts differed with Zamir’s opinion, claiming that Sharon’s resignation did not officially constitute a resignation. They pointed out that resignation from the ministry meant by law resignation from the Cabinet. According to Article 17 of Israel’s Basic Law, the Cabinet as a whole decides on the reshuffling of portfolios, not any single minister nor even the Prime Minister.

The legal experts argued that the wording of the commission’s recommendation regarding Sharon could be interpreted by strict legalists as providing a loophole to circumvent Article 17 by having the Cabinet accept the recommendation in principle but not acting as a body to decide on the reallocation of the defense portfolio.

Zamir, however, was supported by one of his predecessors, Moshe Ben-Ze’ev, and by a former long-time chairman of the Knesset Law Committee and a former Cabinet minister, Zerah Warhaftig of the National Religious Party. In addition, Justice Minister Moshe Nissim also held that the meaning of the inquiry commission’s recommendation was that Sharon should be removed only from his defense post, not from the Cabinet as such.

In support of his interpretation, Nissim cited the panel’s use of the phrase, “draw the appropriate personal conclusions. “The commission could have stated that Sharon should “resign from the Cabinet, ” but it did not do so, and its choice of language was deliberate, Nissim pointed out.

HAARETZ, POST ASSAIL CABINET DECISION

Haaretz, in a rare step, published its editorial on the front page. Headlined, “They’re making a mockery of the commission’s recommendation, “the article argued that” … the Cabinet’s decision contradicts its claim that it has accepted the commission’s recommendations in full, and is implementing them in full, including the most important recommendation … “The Knesset is still free to rebut this contradiction, even if Prof. Yitzhak Zamir has found it proper to give the commission’s recommendation regarding the former Defense Minister a far-fetched interpretation which makes it into a mockery.”

The Jerusalem Post’s headline was “Defying the Commission. ” The editorial cited Zamir’s rationale and asserted baldly, “We think he is dead wrong.” The paper said the commission used a circumlocution to call for Sharon’s resignation, “but it has every right to expect that its intent would be plain to every right thinking person.”