WINDOW TO THE BACKYARD

INCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON CURRENT AFFAIRS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE MUSLIM WORLD An obligatory read for those who wish to understand why and how the state of Israel got entangled in Lebanon. This book was written by a member of the Israeli Intelligence Service and former Mossad agent, Yair Ravid (Ravitch), who was in charge of establishing Israel’s connections with South Lebanon and the Christian Phalanges in Beirut in 1976. It describes and analyzes the thought patterns that governed those who initiated contacts and the relationship with South Lebanon, as well as the reasons leading them to deviate from the original intentions, thus sinking Israel in the Lebanese swamp. The author describes things as they were, without embellishing or beautifying reality. The second part of the book comprises a variety of stories about the experiences of an Israeli Intelligence officer, told with wit and humor. (Yossi Melman, journalist and commentator on security and intelligence affairs)

Yair Ravid, known in the intelligence community and in Lebanon as “Abu Daoud,” sets out before us in his personal and authentic story, a turbulent and fascinating period in Israel’s relations with the Christians in Lebanon. A relationship that began in the 1970s with the Christian villages in South Lebanon designed to counterbalance the presence of the Palestinian military forces, continuing with an alliance with the Christians in the north formed before and during the First Lebanon War, ending with the hasty withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon under pressure of Hezbollah attacks. The book reveals once again – this time from someone of esteemed authority who is well versed in the Lebanese language and mentality – Israel’s political and military folly, led by Defense Minister Sharon, in an attempt to impose a new order in Lebanon, without understanding and internalizing the fragile ethnic tapestry in the country, and the fact that the Christians were a broken reed. Between the lines we can hear severe criticism of the conduct of the IDF Intelligence and the Mossad, never discussed or studied in depth to this date. Conduct leading to the sinking in the Lebanese quagmire, some of which was not in keeping with the code of ethics and professional standards. Yair, who was my commander in the Mossad, is an excellent Arabist with a thorough understanding of Lebanese culture and history. He also has strong analytical abilities and a keen sense of criticism. Through his personal story he offers us a rare glimpse behind the scenes of the intelligence campaign which took place in Lebanon. (Naftali Granot, former deputy head of the Mossad)

FIRST OF ALL
I was born in 1945, the first child of my parents Tova and Yehuda Ravitch, may God rest their souls. My mother, from the Panitzman (Panicman) family, was born in the Polish town of Otwock, not far from the capital city of Warsaw. She immigrated to Israel alone in 1935 and settled in Tel Aviv. All her family members who remained in Poland were murdered in the Holocaust. My father was born in Lutsk, a town in the province of Volyn, Ukraine; he immigrated to Israel in 1936. He was an illegal immigrant who came to Israel with the Zionist Betar movement. It was illegal because the British who ruled the country in those years placed restrictions on Jewish immigration. After arriving in Israel, he joined a Betar group located in Rosh Pina, in the Upper Galilee. The members of the group worked as agricultural laborers, and at nights guarded the community, while conducting secret military training.

In World War II, my father volunteered to serve in the British Army’s Jewish Brigade, and fought with the 2nd Battalion in the Western Desert and in Italy. His family members who remained in the Ukraine perished in the Holocaust. My father's sister Doba, of blessed memory, who came to Israel legally, was the only immigrant from the town of Lutsk who was allowed to visit the freedom fighter Shlomo Ben-Yosef in Acre Prison before he was hanged by the British. He was tried and convicted for shooting at Arabs in retaliation for the murder of Jews. Shlomo Ben-Yosef was born in Lutsk, and he and my father were members of the same branch of the Betar youth movement.

When I was born in 1945, my parents had not yet learned of the fate of their relatives who remained in Europe and so they didn't name me for either of my grandfathers. As is known, Jews originating from Europe (Ashkenazim) do not give a baby the name of a living person. This is in contrast to the custom of Oriental Jews (Sephardim) who give babies names of living relatives. For this reason, my parents named me Yair, for Yair Stern, founder and commander of the underground LEHI organization—Fighters for the Freedom of Israel—who was murdered in 1942 by British detectives after his hiding place was discovered. My two younger brothers were named after my two grandfathers, Abraham and Aharon.

I spent my childhood in a small community near the city of Haifa. The elementary school where I studied was located close by. Most of my classmates were born in Israel, children from families of working people for whom wealth was out of reach. Our teachers were old school, educating and teaching us social and Zionist values. In the early 1950s, girls and boys from the great wave of immigration from Iraq joined our class. Their families were housed in transit camps. Our fellow immigrants were received by us with open arms and soon became an integral part of us. In 1956 another wave of immigration arrived: this time from Poland. The children of this immigration were received very well by us, so much so that one of the girls in this group named Shoshana (Rosa) was the love of my youth. You could say that our class was a real melting pot. One of my friends from youth who immigrated to Israel from Turkey has said that he never for a moment felt like an immigrant because of the way in which we welcomed him. The good feeling we gave to the new immigrants can most definitely be attributed to the Zionist education we received from our parents and teachers.

My achievements as a student were not impressive, except in those areas that particularly interested me, like bible, history, literature, and geography. In subjects such as accounting, engineering, and physics, my achievements were weak. In the eighth grade, when we learned about the false prophet Shabbtai Zvi, our class conducted a mock trial. I took the role of the defense. Despite Zvi’s conduct—that seemed deviant to me, and it was not without a reason I called him a false prophet—I did an effective job as his lawyer. The arguments brought in his defense and especially the concluding speech I gave led to his exoneration. I think the world lost a brilliant criminal defense attorney when I chose not to be a lawyer.

I grew up in a community surrounded by open spaces that allowed me to run and play outside and enjoy the soccer games that we loved so much. All my classmates, without exception, served in the IDF and became law-abiding, tax-paying and contributing citizens. I grew up in a patriotic home with parents who taught me that serving the country and society were supreme values. Moreover, my parents taught me that the land of Israel spans both banks of the Jordan River. These views were minority opinions among my classmates at school, and among our teachers.

Once, we went on a school trip in Jerusalem, obviously prior to the 1967 Six Day War, when it was still a divided city with only the western part under Israeli control. After the trip we were asked to write an essay describing our impressions from our visit to Jerusalem. I wrote an essay in which I emphasized that our visit was not in Jerusalem, but rather in the suburbs near Jerusalem. I further explained that the real Jerusalem, where the holy places for Jews such as the Temple Mount and Western Wall are located, was under the control of Jordanian authorities; and wished for the day when the city would be liberated and returned to its Jewish owners. Following this essay, my parents were invited to meet with the school principal who expressed his disapproval of what I wrote. My mother did not understand why the principal was upset, because “what the boy wrote was correct.” It was a rare occurrence for my parents to stand by me in a disagreement with a teacher. In all other cases I was told that “the teacher is always right.”

For many years I supported the approach that Israel would not concede “even one inch” and believed that Israel has full rights over the entire historic Land of Israel, and that it must realize this right and build settlements on every available point on the map. In recent years, although I continue to wholeheartedly believe in the right of Israel and the Jews to all parts of the Land of Israel, I have changed my mind vis-a-vis the settlements and the actual realization of our ownership of the land. I have reached the conclusion that our continued presence in Judea and Samaria will necessarily result in a bi-national state that will eventually constitute the loss of the Jewish state. From the lessons learned in Lebanon and from examples of other countries with populations consisting of different nationalities and ethnic groups, I now understand that the only solution for the existence of the state of Israel is separation – us here and them there! I am also in favor of territorial and population exchanges, and in exchange for the large blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria which would remain under Israeli sovereignty, I am in support of handing over to the Palestinian Authority control over concentrations of Israeli Arab populations in the area known as the Triangle and in Wadi Aara, near the 1967 border that separated Israel and the West Bank. In no way does this constitute a “transfer” of any kind, since the entire Arab population currently living in these areas will simply cease to be under Israeli sovereignty and come under the control of the Palestinian Authority. People will continue to live in their homes and on their lands. Only their citizenship will change.

I have no illusions that such a separation and the establishment of a Palestinian state will lead to peace and the end of the conflict, for the Palestinians will never recognize the existence of a Jewish state or relinquish what they refer to as their right of return; a “right” which in my opinion does not exist. Indeed, United Nations Resolution 181 (November 1947) on the partition of Palestine between a Jewish state and an Arab state was rejected by the Arabs and led to the immediate attack by all the surrounding armies with the objective of conquering the land, defeating the Jewish state and taking control of the entire Land of Israel. History teaches us that the Jewish people fought for independence, overcame the Arab armies that invaded its territories and achieved its freedom and independence. The Arabs were defeated in a war of their own making, many escaped to the neighboring Arab states and were settled in refugee camps built for them and in which their offspring reside to this day, while no one – Arab or otherwise – has raised a finger to change their living conditions or status. The purpose of this was to put pressure on the state of Israel and to force it to accept under its sovereignty the descendants of those refugees.

While on the subject of refugees, it is worth noting that the number of Jews forced out of Arab states as a result of persecution and pogroms, and who arrived in Israel as refugees, was greater than the number of those Arabs who left the Land of Israel. Of the Jews who left their homes and property behind in the Arab countries that banished them, not a single one has maintained the status of refugee. With enormous effort, the Jews who arrived in Israel managed to rehabilitate themselves and build for themselves and their families a new and positive future. This was achieved in no small measure with the help of the meager resources at the disposal of the fledgling state of Israel. This stands in stark contrast to the wealthy Arab states which could have easily funded the rehabilitation of all the Palestinian refugees. On the contrary, they refrained from doing so because the Arab states have always had a political interest in perpetuating the Palestinians’ refugee status and using it as a tool against the Jewish state. The West, led by the United States, was instrumental in making this happen, acting as full partners in the unprecedented perpetuation of the Palestinians’ refugee status by permitting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to support and finance the fourth and fifth generations of Palestinian refugees.

I have no doubt in my mind that the current Palestinian leadership, led by Mahmoud Abbas, much like his predecessor the arch criminal Yasser Arafat, is unable and indeed unwilling to reach any kind of agreement with the state of Israel. The Palestinian leadership does not have the authority to divide the Land of Israel into two states, an Arab state for the Arabs and a Jewish state for the Jews. Israel has made such an agreement conditional on the signing of a peace treaty that includes a Palestinian declaration relinquishing the right of return and announcing an end to the conflict. All talks on the part of the Palestinian leaders regarding their desire for a partition of the land into two states for two nations—a two-state solution—are no more than empty words, aimed at foolish Israelis and especially at naive western governments, who lack a basic understanding of the Middle East. If we wish to learn about the various American administrations’ measure of understanding of the way things are conducted in the Middle East, it is sufficient to recall former President Jimmy Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran who was a firm ally of the United States, and the latter’s attempts to promote civil rights for the people of Iran. The citizens of Iran did not receive “civil rights and liberty” under the cruel dictatorship of the Ayatollah regime which replaced the Shah, whom the US persuaded to abdicate. President Barak Obama’s conduct vis-à-vis the Middle East is not very different. His betrayal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, also a faithful ally of the United States, and his support of “democracy and civil rights” for the Egyptian people, ultimately resulted in the strict Islamic regime of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or civil rights. Altogether, the naïveté of the US administration, with its liberal beliefs and the merging of its delusions with what has been coined the Arab Spring is not based on reality.

The current situation in Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, and Syria – where a bloodthirsty civil war has been raging for years – could not be further from a spring. It is a harsh and cruel winter with no end in sight. In response to events in Syria, various senior American government officials have been voicing support of the rebel forces and against Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian president, who is massacring the citizens of his country. Here too, the US administration is demonstrating an unforgivable lack of understanding of the situation in Syria. President Bashar Al-Assad is a bitter enemy of the state of Israel and a zealous opponent of the United States and the West. But at the same time, he is a responsible and rational leader of a state. I believe that when President Assad prays, he talks to his god as most people do. If the civil war in Syria is won by the rebels, Syria will come under the rule of the most extreme Islamic forces from the Salafi and al-Qaeda doctrines, and when these pray, it is god who talks to them, but we can never know what that god has said to them and what he has told them to do. I often wonder how a superpower like the USA, which leads the world in almost every sphere imaginable, allows itself to accept decisions on fateful issues based on principles that are more suited perhaps to the Scouts Movement, rather than on a cold and calculated recognition and analysis of available facts. Liberalism and a concern for the rights of individuals are indeed lofty principles, but under no circumstance can they serve as a work plan, certainly not in a harsh, murderous and cynical environment such as the Middle East. In this sphere, the Americans can learn a lot from the Russians and their predecessors, the Soviets, who conducted themselves in the field with the utmost cynicism and rationalism. When, under Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime, the staff of the US Embassy in Tehran was taken hostage, an English-language newspaper published a caricature depicting the hostages sitting on the embassy floor with their eyes blindfolded. A journalist standing beside a Russian diplomat asks the latter: “Tell me please, how come this kind of thing is not done to your diplomats?” To which the Russian replies, “We simply don’t allow it to happen!” In 1983, the US Embassy’s military attaché in Beirut, Lieutenant-Colonel William Higgins and William Buckley, head of the CIA station in Beirut, were abducted by Hezbollah, under the leadership of Imad Mughniyeh. The two were executed by Mughniyeh’s people who were responsible for many Hezbollah attacks on Israel and the US. Mughniyeh was subsequently assassinated in Damascus, when a bomb exploded in his car. Some people credit the Israeli Mossad with the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh. Two years after the kidnappings, in September 1985, a team of Hezbollah operatives kidnapped a KGB agent serving in the Soviet Embassy in Beirut. Hezbollah held him hostage and conditioned his release on the release of their people imprisoned in various parts of the world. The Soviet reaction was ruthless and unequivocal. A number of KGB operatives were brought to Beirut, where, after a brief deployment and a study of conditions in the field, they went to work. They kidnapped a relative of a senior Hezbollah official, killed him and mutilated his body before finally dumping it in a choice location in Al Dahiya, a Shiite quarter of Beirut. His severed penis was stuffed in his mouth. The hostage KGB operative was released immediately. I believe no further illustration of the Russian “we won't allow this to happen” attitude is needed.

The appeasing attitude of most of the world to the murderous actions of fundamentalist Islam, coupled with the constant criticism those same countries mount against the state of Israel, derives from two main sources. The first is classic anti-Semitism, deeply rooted in history. Until the Holocaust in WWII, the Jews of Europe were the prime objects of this anti-Semitism. Today the familiar classic anti-Semitism is directed at the state of Israel, although its perpetrators do not openly admit to their motives and claim that it is Israel’s presence in the territories of the West Bank of the Jordan River that they oppose.

The second, new kind of anti-Semitism is harbored by Muslim immigrants who have settled and established themselves in a large number of European countries and in the USA. These Muslims left their failing fatherlands in the Middle East and in Africa, and settled in Europe and in the US, where they were welcomed with open arms. Instead of grasping the golden opportunity granted them with both hands and building themselves and their children a promising new future, those same Muslims preferred to ensconce themselves in the Islamic ghettoes they quickly established. They have preferred to preserve their fundamentalist habits and laws, to perpetuate the failure they brought with them from their countries of origin, and spin dreams of turning those western countries into Islamic clones, where Sharia law will take over the laws of their host countries.

Note the recent spate of violence in Sweden, the beheaded British soldier in London, the murder of a French soldier by Islamic fundamentalists in Paris, the murderous bombing attacks at the 2013 Boston marathon, and more recently, the murder of the staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. These are all indications that the US and Europe are going to pay dearly for their irresponsible immigration policy. The mass demonstration in Paris against terrorism has not left a lasting impression on terrorists, and were I in the shoes of the Paris Police commissioner, I would increase the protection of the Eiffel tower.

Add to this the daily beheadings of western citizens, and mass executions of Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis, the rape of women and girls which are carried out by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq, who have been knocking on the doors of Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

And please take note, this is only the beginning. ISIL will not be satisfied with the takeover of the Muslim countries, for their far-reaching goal is that Islam rule the world. I suggest to the readers not to observe this phenomenon through the eyes of Western cultural thought, but to try thinking the way these ISIL members think and act. In their view, the dimension of time has no value. For them the struggle may continue a year, half a century, or ten generations. The death toll among their people has no importance. The place of every dead jihadist will be filled by another three new volunteers. This is a culture that sanctifies death, and which promises its people who die in battle 72 virgins. Its people are driven not only by religious fervor, but also, especially the younger men, by strong sexual impulses. These people live in conservative communities which restrict any contact and connection between the genders, and the thought of 72 virgins and the promise this holds gives them impetus to fight. Of all the factors mentioned above, we would be wise to remember that in such organizations there have always been people who make a fortune and get rich on the backs of the fighters. These people have a vested interest in encouraging and fueling the continued fighting.

Most of the young Muslims living in western countries who volunteered to join ISIL are people consumed by anger and bitterness resulting from their failure to integrate into western society. They perceive a return to their religion and their war against the “infidels” as a kind of revenge.

For many years, the state of Israel faced and fought alone against the murderous Arab terrorism, without any real backing from western countries, which were careful to take an ambiguous stand toward rampant Arab terrorism. This attitude originates in a notion that as long as this terrorism does not hurt them, but harms only Israel and the Jews, they can suffice in condemning terrorism, immediately balancing their condemnation with statements regarding Israel’s responsibility for the terrorism because it is ostensibly an occupying power.

The West, headed by the American hypocritical liberals, is not yet free from its illusions, and continues to spread the ridiculous notion that events such as the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, or the attempted takeover of the Muslim world by ISIL and the desire to impose an Islamic caliphate on the world, are a result of the (so called) Israeli occupation. Lo and behold, the fools believe that this guarantees that Israel will give the Palestinians independence, and world peace will come. And I tell them, if you want to live and preserve your heritage and way of life, you must quickly disillusion yourselves and understand that the world is in a deep cultural and physical world war, and that the West should mobilize in full force and fight. Statements, declarations and aerial attacks will not resolve the problems. There is no room for compromise. As someone who has dealt with Arab and Islamic terrorism his entire adult life, I firmly state: there can be no compromise with terrorists. If you don't eliminate terrorism, terrorism will destroy you. At the same time, I would recommend that you reconsider your reckless immigration policy if you want to live.

Another cause of the biased attitude that some European countries display toward Israel leans heavily on their generally liberal, left wing, romantic and uninformed ideology. Instead of supporting the liberal, democratic state of Israel, which is advanced in every possible sphere imaginable, they prefer to stand by the Palestinians and the failing countries in the Middle East. But who am I to criticize the behavior of other countries, when so many left wing circles inside Israel, including academics, intellectuals and senior members of the press, are laying all the blame for the current situation on Israel’s shoulders, and enthusiastically join a call for boycotting the Jewish state? The distinguished Israeli journalist, Ben Dror Yemini, for whom I have great respect, has quoted Lenin in coining these circles in and outside of Israel the “useful idiots.” Idiots – because of their ignorance, and useful – because of their usefulness to Israel’s enemies.

An exception to this rule and worthy of special recognition is the Christian Evangelist community in the US and throughout the world, which for many years has stood by Israel and provided unreserved and unconditional support stemming from a deep-seated belief in the rightness of the path taken by the Jewish state. The uncompromising stance of this community has supported Israel’s ability to resist and endowed us with enormous powers.

In 1976, when I established ties between the state of Israel and the Christian minority in southern Lebanon and Beirut, and took action to ensure that Israel would defend this Christian population against the Muslims who wished them ill, as described in great detail in this book, I was guided among other also by the fact of the Christian Evangelist community's strong support for the state of Israel. It is with pride that I can write that the only state in the Middle East where the Christian population can live in absolute security without any threat is the state of Israel. And, indeed, in recent years some of the Christian citizens of the state have come to understand that they must cut themselves off from the Arab Muslim population, tie their destiny to the state of Israel, and become fully integrated into Israeli life, including voluntary military service.

In keeping with the reasons I have detailed here, I believe that it is impossible to reach an agreement with the Palestinians over the partition of the country into two separate states. Israel must therefore make a unilateral move toward separation: withdraw its presence from the West Bank territories, while maintaining control of the large blocs of Jewish population such as Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim and Gush Etzion, as well as determine our own borders, surrounded by an electronic security fence with means of caution and deterrence. The Palestinians decision whether or not to establish a Palestinian state on the land allocated to them is theirs. They alone must plan and conduct their lives as they see fit, in accordance with their abilities.

If they establish a state – so much the better! If they don’t, it is their business. However, as it withdraws unilaterally, Israel must at the same time make it absolutely clear to the Palestinians and to the entire world that the endless barrage of rockets and mortars against its civilian population that followed Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip cannot recur. Indeed, the first rocket to fall on Israel after such a withdrawal will encounter a sharp and completely disproportionate response. And Israel must ensure that such a response will come immediately; Israel must not sit waiting on the sidelines, making empty statements and warnings, as happened after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Any attack on Israeli territory must be met with an immediate and forceful reaction; a reaction with dire consequences for the Palestinian population in the territory from which Israel withdrew, making it impossible for them to continue their lives in the region and forcing them to seek asylum as refugees in the various Arab states. There will be no compromise on Israel’s part.

Moreover, Israel will ensure that the territory it evacuates will remain demilitarized and devoid of all heavy weapons. Under any other circumstances, Israel does not have any chance of surviving in the jungle known as the Middle East.

*

When I enlisted for my mandatory service in the Israel Defense Forces in 1963, it was only natural that I would aspire to serve in a combat unit. I served in Egoz, a Special Forces reconnaissance unit. I took part in the activities and operations of the unit, including border incidents and clashes with the Syrian army posts, which dominated the Israeli settlements in Hula Valley and embittered the lives of the Israeli residents. We also engaged in pursuing squads being launched by Syrian Intelligence into Israel to carry out acts of sabotage and gather military information.

I loved the military life, and at a very early stage of my service, I decided to embark on a combat officers’ course and see my future in the standing army. After graduating squad commanders training, the date I was supposed to start the officers’ course was set. Several weeks before the start of the course which I was supposed to attend, I was wounded in an operational activity of my unit along the northern border. My right arm was hit by a bullet. The main artery in my arm was hit and I lost a lot of blood; the medic in the field wrapped a tourniquet which stopped the blood loss. From the border my friends took me immediately to Poriya Hospital located near the city of Tiberias. After receiving first aid, I was transferred to Rambam Hospital in Haifa. In the emergency room I was greeted by a young physician named Dr. Moshe Hashmonai. He participated in all of my surgeries, and followed the stages of my recovery. Later he became professor, chief of surgery at Rambam Hospital. After not seeing each other for many years we happened to meet in the gym, and we renewed our old friendship.

The bullet hit the main artery in my arm and it was in danger of amputation. Specialist vascular surgeon Professor Schramek was called to the hospital. After the surgery, which lasted many hours, the surgeons were able to suture the artery. I later learned that the surgeons acted heroically in order to save my arm from amputation. After I regained consciousness and recovered a little, Professor Schramek told me that he was called to my surgery in the midst of his birthday celebration with his family. I responded apologetically because of “the questionable present I gave him for his birthday.” The professor responded that due to their success in saving my life and saving my arm from amputation, he could not wish for a more beautiful gift. For many years after, whenever I met the professor, on the street, at the gas station or at the theater, he would check the pulse in my injured arm and smile with satisfaction when he felt it.

Ten years later, I was already a married man and my wife Rivka was eight months pregnant with our second child, Rotem. One weekend, during a family visit, not far from the city of Haifa, my wife felt a severe pain in her stomach. I took her immediately to the Rambam Hospital emergency room in Haifa. The doctor on duty who examined her diagnosed that the source of the pain was a fatty tumor found in her stomach and that there was an urgent need to remove it in surgery. But since she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy he could not take responsibility, and he called the professor, head of the surgical department to perform the operation. My wife was taken to the operating theater and I waited near the entrance. A few minutes later, the head of the department arrived, none other than Professor Schramek. After the usual ritual of checking my pulse he asked to know why I was at the hospital. To that I responded that the woman he was about to operate, which is why he was called from his home, is my wife. We parted with a handshake and he continued walking toward the operating room. After taking a few steps he turned and walked back. He stopped next to me and asked: “Do you remember what the date is today?” I answered immediately, “Of course I remember, today is June fourth, your birthday. Exactly ten years since the last time I disrupted your birthday celebration, and here I am again.”

Although my doctors had saved my right arm from amputation, it remained completely paralyzed. While in the hospital, Colonel Ariel Sharon (later to become Major-General), who visited the wounded soldiers, came to visit me too. At that time, Sharon was the deputy of the Northern Command of the IDF. Years later, he was elected Prime Minister of Israel. Colonel Sharon was informed by my unit commander Shayke Erez that the injury would prevent me from joining the officers' course. During his visit, when Sharon stopped by my bed, he told me that once I get better and leave the hospital, if I still want to join the officers' course, he would help me.

Recovery took about a year and a half. During this period I underwent many surgeries and daily physiotherapy treatments. Although I recovered, my arm remained paralyzed and my doctors told me that the paralysis is irreversible.

The injury did not change my decision to continue my service in the standing army. And I was determined to join the officers' course so I could achieve my goal. However, it was clear to me that I would have to leave the combat track and continue my service in Military Intelligence.

I submitted a formal request to join the officers' course. I was soon notified by an adjutant officer that due to the injury my medical profile was lowered to such a degree that does not permit army service and required my immediate release. This option was of course, not an option for me. I asked my unit commander to get me an interview with Major-General Sharon, who at that time was head of the training department of the IDF. In this position he was responsible for all military courses, including also the officers' course. In the int