JERUSALEM -- Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin slipped in through a side door of the Supreme Court building last Wednesday, eluding reporters and photographers waiting in front.
He spent 4 1/2 hours testifying in secret session before the inquiry commission into the Hebron massacre. He then left the same way.
It was an incongruous end to the first phase of the commission's work, which has been both educational and alarming to Israelis for its open, televised proceedings.
Israelis are accustomed to having military embarrassments hidden under a cloak of secrecy for "security reasons."
But the commission appointed to investigate the mass murder of Muslim worshipers at the Hebron mosque has been a riveting change.
"This commission is putting a mirror in the face of the Israeli public and forcing people to look at things they didn't want to see," said one high government official.
Mr. Rabin was the 99th witness to testify before the commission about the massacre Feb. 25, and the last to do so voluntarily. Three Muslim guards who boycotted the commission were arrested Thursday and will be required to testify under subpoena today.
On Friday, officials released the testimony of the wife of Baruch Goldstein, the man who opened fire in the Cave of the Patriarchs. Mrs. Goldstein, who was permitted to testify in private, said of her husband's actions, "I still don't understand." She also asked the commission to reopen the question of whether other settlers helped him, a suspicion raised but still unsettled by public testimony.
The five commission members now will mull over the evidence before issuing their findings, probably in about a month. The commission's only power is to make recommendations to the prime minister. But perhaps the biggest result of its work already has been felt in its public revelations.
The hearings laid out some harsh realities of the army's military occupation: the double standards applied to Jews and Arabs, the close cooperation between soldiers and right-wing settlers, the mind-set -- reinforced by orders -- that only Palestinians are dangerous.
Israelis were startled to hear a succession of soldiers say they had clear orders never to shoot a Jewish settler, even to protect the lives of Arab civilians or themselves.
"I think even I was shocked that there was actually an order," said Galia Golan, whose leftist organization Peace Now has long argued that Israeli rule of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is unjust.
"People are now hearing things they didn't know, or didn't want to know," she said.
"We have tried all kinds of ways to get this information to the public, and it just didn't get there. It's getting there now."
The public also is seeing its military squirm in an unflattering light. The haphazard discipline of the guards of the mosque -- only half the 10-man roster showed up for duty the morning of the massacre -- and the ease with which the gunman strolled past them into the mosque with a rifle and ear protectors caused many Israelis to wince.
"It certainly has tainted the good image of the army," said
Emanuel Gutmann, an Israeli political analyst.
Open government
But apart from the warts it has uncovered, the public nature of the inquiry has been an extraordinary demonstration of open government.
"There's no cover-up. No attempt to sweep errors or mismanagement or bad judgment or 'balagan' -- disorder -- under the carpet," said Peter Medding, a professor of political science at Hebrew University. "On the contrary, it's all out there . . . for everyone to see."
The hearings have gone on for 4 1/2 weeks, and virtually all of the sessions have been broadcast live on television and radio. On the day the army chief of staff, Gen. Ehud Barak, appeared, Israel's cable channel claimed that 900,000 people watched -- in a country of only 5 million.
"There's an enormous level of interest," said pollster Hanoch Smith.
"The commission has made a precedent," said the respected Hebrew daily Ha'aretz. "The public has realized its rights to get its information first-hand, as expected in a real democracy."
Previous official commissions did most of their work in secret; none was televised. Only seven witnesses were permitted by this commission to appear behind closed doors. Day after day, Israelis watched the commission members -- headed by Chief Supreme Court Justice Meir Shamgar -- aggressively question top state officials.
Mr. Rabin was an exception. He had not been in favor of the hearings from the start, and the commission bowed to his choice to testify in private.
That decision "defeats the purpose of the whole exercise," complained opposition Parliament member Michael Eitan. Agreed Ha'aretz: "The prime minister is liable to be perceived as someone hiding from the public."
Gad Ben-Ari, the prime minister's spokesman, said that because Mr. Rabin also serves as defense minister, privy to matters about undercover intelligence and the secret police, he wanted to discuss them in closed session.
"It's impossible to divide" his roles, said Mr. Ben-Ari. "Some of the issues have been very sensitive. He wanted to be on the safe side."
One close associate of Mr. Rabin suggested the prime minister's decision was made largely because of the cameras.
"He's not a man of the media," said the associate, who asked not to be named. Without a written text, "he jumps around from one point to another" in an unflattering fashion.
That is the problem with televised proceedings, said media critic Yariv Ben-Eliezer.
"When we watch TV, we look for who appears well, who looks good, not what the truth is," he said. "It's made the commission more of a show than an investigation. That's why so many
people are watching-- it's become a TV drama."
Planting the seeds
Others are not so dismissive. The hearings may have "planted some seeds," said Ms. Golan of Peace Now, and are educating viewers about the brutal complexities of Israel's 26-year military rule in the territories.
"It's amazing how people tuned it out" until these hearings, she said. "They didn't want to know because they didn't believe it."
Others remark on the value of watching an Arab judge -- Nazareth District Court Judge Abdel Rahman Zuabi -- on the panel. His aggressive questioning of ranking Jewish officers on national television has shown "here's a country that has nothing to hide," said Mr. Medding.
Ironically, the commission's educational value may turn out to be more significant than its findings.
It may be unable to prove fully what happened on the day of the massacre. Most of the testimony has suggested Goldstein acted alone. But there are contradictions: Palestinian witnesses said shooting came from different spots; Israeli ballistic experts said one shell found in the mosque came from another gun; soldiers disagreed about the rifle Goldstein carried.
The commission may never quiet suspicions.
The commission has not delved deeply into the possibility of accomplices or if the attack was planned with other settlers. Miriam Goldstein, the wife of the dead gunman, testified privately Wednesday, but the commission released a written transcript.
She raised the possibility that her husband had help and urged the panel to question about a dozen other Jews who were in a separate section of the Cave of the Patriarchs.
Lingering issues
Public witnesses have not touched the issue of whether Jewish settlers should be in the heart of Arab Hebron. The commission has not intensively questioned witnesses in public about arming of right-wing Jewish settlers by the army, nor asked why the government turned a blind eye to the paramilitary operations by settlers.
The commission has spent considerable time probing the chain of command in the army, with the evident purpose of determining who was responsible for the security lapses that allowed the massacre.
This direction reportedly has the army hierarchy worried. A finding of such responsibility by a 1982 inquiry, into massacres at Beirut refugee camps under Israeli control, forced the resignation of then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon.
The boldness of the findings may be limited by Justice Shamgar's likely attempt to reach unanimous recommendations. Finding common ground between liberal and conservative members makes it "really quite easy for them to come up with something wishy-washy," said Mr. Gutmann. "They will come out with some very low-level criticism."
Of 10 previous formal commissions in Israel's 46 years, some have had a hefty impact, and others were quickly forgotten. Still, "it would be very difficult for the government to ignore its recommendations," said Professor Baruch Bracha, an expert in constitutional law. "The government might not implement them, but they cannot be ignored."