Exclusive - 10 Factual Errors Committed by ‘The Spy’ Series on Eli Cohen

Israeli spy Eli Cohen (L) and two other unidentified co-defendants, during their trial in Damascus, ten days before his execution. (AFP)
Israeli spy Eli Cohen (L) and two other unidentified co-defendants, during their trial in Damascus, ten days before his execution. (AFP)
TT

Exclusive - 10 Factual Errors Committed by ‘The Spy’ Series on Eli Cohen

Israeli spy Eli Cohen (L) and two other unidentified co-defendants, during their trial in Damascus, ten days before his execution. (AFP)
Israeli spy Eli Cohen (L) and two other unidentified co-defendants, during their trial in Damascus, ten days before his execution. (AFP)

Netflix last week released a series about Israeli spy, Eli Cohen, who had infiltrated Syria in the 1960s. The six-episode series sought to glamorize the image of the spy, taking into account only the Israeli version of accounts. The show was after all written and directed by Israeli director Gideon Raff and sought to present Israeli intelligence “heroics” in contrast with corruption and betrayal among the Syrian political class.

The series, starring comedic actor Sacha Baron Cohen, was rife with factual and political errors and omits the Syrian version of the story. Few Syrian accounts exist. One was recounted by Judge Salah al-Dalali, who presided over the court that sentenced Cohen to death. The Mossad spy operated in Syria between 1962 and 1965 when he was arrested and executed.

Syrian writers and historians pointed to ten historical errors committed in “The Spy”:

1- President Amin al-Hafez: The series showed that he met and struck a friendship with Cohen when he served as Syria’s military attache in Argentina. Hafez himself denied the relationship during a television interview in 2001. He explained that he was in Argentina in 1962 long after Cohen had arrived in Damascus. He revealed that he only met Cohen after his arrest in 1965. Claims of the friendship was promoted by Egyptian dailies at the time as part of a campaign against Hafez over a backdrop of political tensions. No document or picture exist to prove the relationship between Hafez and Cohen.

2 - Hafez al-Assad and Amin al-Hafez: Assad was not a lieutenant general as claimed by the series. He was an officer deployed in Egypt. Amin al-Hafez did not come to power after the March 8, 1963 coup in Syria as shown in the series. He was appointed interior minister and then assumed the presidency of the revolutionary command council. He became president on July 27 later that year.

3 - Michel Aflaq: He did not meet with Cohen and did not give him a list of people to invite, including Prime Minister Khaled al-Azm, for a March 8 soiree. Azm had never visited Cohen in his life. Contrary to what the series claimed, Aflaq did not have information about the army’s activity during the March 8 coup.

4 - Abdul Karim Zahreddine: An army chief of staff, he never set foot in Cohen’s house, but his nephew, reservist Maazi, did. Maazi was Cohen’s friend and released from the army on the day of the coup. He later assumed minor positions in public office. He used to meet with Cohen at his house or at the al-Kamal cafe in central Damascus. He was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison in 1965.

5 - Maazi Zahreddine and the front: Maazi escorted Cohen to the Syrian front with Israel in 1962. It was claimed that the spy obtained military intelligence that was vital to the June 5, 1967 defeat during Six-Day War. However, there is a five-year period between the visit and the defeat, raising questions over just how vital the information actually was. Moreover, officers deployed at the front and military positions were repeatedly changed after March 8, 1963 and later in 1966. A western expert revealed earlier this week that Cohen’s mission was not aimed at gathering information about the front, but cracking down on Nazi officers who were staying in Damascus. He was also tasked with following up on the situation of Jews in the Syrian capital.

6 - Deputy defense minister: The series claimed that Cohen was considered for the position of “deputy defense minister”. No such position had existed at the time. It was introduced in 1970. Moreover, such a position is restricted to military figures and no civilian can occupy it.

7 - Ahmed Suweidani: He later became chief of staff. He was not head of Hafez’s security in Argentina. The scene from the series where Cohen secretly enters Hafez’s office and takes photographs of classified documents is pure fiction. The series did get Suweidani’s suspicions against Cohen right. An expert revealed: “He was suspicious of Cohen from day one. He played a central role in exposing and arresting him in 1965.”

8 - Execution: The series showed Damascene Majed Sheikh al-Ard doffing his hat to Cohen out of sorrow and respect the moment he was hanged in al-Marjeh square. A historian said that it is well-known that Sheikh al-Ard was deceived by Cohen. He was one of his victims.

He met Cohen in 1962 on board a ship that was sailing from Europe to Beirut. Cohen ingratiated himself to Sheikh al-Ard and entered Syria with him through Lebanon under the alias Kamel Amin Thabet. Sheikh al-Ard helped Cohen rent a furnished apartment on Abu Rummaneh street in Damascus. The expert added: “The relationship between the two men did not go any further because Sheikh al-Ard had no information of use to the spy.” Moreover, he once spoke about his admiration of Adolf Hitler, which immediately caused friction between him and Cohen.

Sheikh al-Ard did not witness Cohen’s execution and did not doff his hat to him. He was in jail, serving a life sentence. He was held in Qalaa prison in Damascus and later transferred to Palmyra prison where he died in his cell reportedly of suicide.

Neither Hafez, not his wife, were present at the execution. Another fabrication is the disgusting storyline about the sexual relationship between Hafez’s wife and Cohen and allegedly with the approval of her husband.

9 - Infiltration of society: The series claimed that Cohen had wormed his way into Syrian society and befriended influential figures. In fact, he only made friends with B and C class figures. He avoided top rank officials out of fear of being exposed. In 2004, Dalali told the writer that Cohen was “just an ordinary spy.” He was buried in a cave by the al-Dimas road. Later his remains were dug up and buried in an undisclosed location.

10 - Abu Rummaneh neighborhood: The series’ depiction of the neighborhood looks more like Talaat square in Cairo. It also claimed that a Russian officer helped detect radio waves, as part of communication with Israel, coming from Cohen's apartment and which led to his discovery. There are four accounts of how he was exposed: by the Russian officer, nearby Indian embassy that detected radio interference, Egyptian intelligence and Suweidani.



Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The world is facing growing uncertainty as the first quarter of the 21st century draws to a close. The changes are rapid and old convictions are dropping one after another. To come to terms with this uncertainty, Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanon’s former Minister of Culture, and former United Nations envoy Ghassan Salame, whose latest publication, “The Temptation of Mars: War and Peace in the 21st Century”, sheds light on which path the world is headed on for decades to come.

Nuclear ambitions

*What has changed in the world system in the first quarter of the 21st century?

Since the end of the Cold War, the world witnessed massive positive change, such as a drop in military spending, nuclear warheads and military bases in foreign countries. The Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe and the United States closed several of its military bases in the Philippines and Central America. Work at the United Nations and several international agencies was also revived.

However, the situation was flipped on its head when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 because the invasion had no legal basis – certainly not from the UN Security Council – and world powers opposed it.

Moreover, the US played the biggest role in establishing the international order since 1945, starting with the UN, international funds and other organizations. So, if this country allowed itself to violate the rules it helped put in place, what’s stopping other countries from doing the same? And this is indeed what happened: Russia entered Georgia and Moldova and then Ukraine for the first time, and again for a second time. Other countries followed suit where they resorted to force to achieve their goals.

As a result, we witnessed a gradual growth in military budgets and nuclear countries, such as Russia, the US and France, began to gradually expand their nuclear arsenal. China is aiming to double its nuclear warheads from 1,500 to 3,000 by 2030.

Non-nuclear countries are meanwhile seeking to obtain them. Some 20 countries are capable of becoming nuclear in one year and I believe some will do so.

If the lack of trust between major powers, including the US, China and others, continues then the tensions will persist and escalate. Just look at how Russia changed its nuclear doctrine and Israeli officials called for bombing Gaza with a nuclear bomb. Such statements could not have been uttered in the 20 years before that.

Comprehensive South

*Will the “comprehensive South” play a role in restoring balance in the global order?

Certainly, but it will take time. Let us take a look at the scene. We have the NATO alliance which has no other equal in the world. When Russia started to move against Georgia and later Ukraine, NATO became more important and neutral European countries, such as Sweden and Finland, previously opposed to joining the alliance, have asked to become a part of it. So, this alliance mainly brings together western countries.

There is no other alliance that is similar to it across the globe. So, there is an imbalance between the West and the rest of the world because the West is reliant on an integrated alliance. There is a feeling among other countries, such as China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India, that they are not getting their share in international organizations and that their opinions, demands and interests do not get the same attention because they are not part of an integrated alliance or unified bloc.

This is why organizations, such as the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, were formed. These groups are still in their early stages of development and they are also victims of contrasting interests: China wants more countries to join the BRICS, while Russia doesn’t. China is speaking of an integrated global south, while Russia doesn’t want to lump itself in that group.

Furthermore, members of these groups have differences between them, such as India and China’s border disputes. The BRICS has not, and will not, in the near future transform into anything like NATO unless it sets a doctrine for itself. NATO is formed of countries that enjoy similar political systems. It is based on a free economic market and liberal constitutional system. These features don’t exist in the BRICS countries.

China and the US

*Where is the rivalry between China and the US headed? Will the years to come lead us to a bipolarity?

It is wrong to believe that China and the US are already in bipolarity. Bipolarity is a project that started 15 years ago. The US does not like multiple poles. It knows that it won’t be able to retain a large number of its allies if it were the sole pole in the world. Washington is most at ease in a bipolar world where it holds the upper hand and where fierce competition makes its allies take its side.

Between 2006 and 2007, when US President Geore W. Bush was in power, the deep state and political elite in the US sought a new rival and believed that China could be it. So, efforts got underway to form the bipolar world and for China to become the main strategic competitor. Of course, China was very comfortable with this.

When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the first foreign dignitary he met was the president of China, not of Russia or France. This elevates China’s status. So, China has become embroiled in this American project to establish a bipolar world. The project is still facing some major resistance from several countries. The question is: Will Russia, India, Brazil and others accept this bipolarity? I believe that several major countries are wary of this bipolarity because it will curb their political and diplomatic freedoms.

Tectonic shifts in the Arab world

*The Arab world is witnessing tectonic shifts, most notably with the ouster of the Syrian regime. Will the Arab world remain this fragmented?

What you are asking has to do with the conditions for political stability. Why are some countries and regions politically stable and others are constantly witnessing revolutions and lack of security?

There are several explanations for this. The common answer is the absence of the state of law, and representation of the people and their involvement in political decisions. These elements provide stability. This is the liberal explanation. Some would say that the liberal reading applies to advanced countries with low populations, not backward ones with large populations where stability can only be imposed through the forceful application of the law.

I believe the Arab world is experiencing a phase that does not allow stability. First, we have the vast inequality in incomes between neighboring countries. This will lead the poorest countries to demand that the wealthier ones share their wealth.

Other factors are the population explosion, people moving from rural to urban areas and the lack of new job opportunities. Syria, for example, has several factors that do not lead to stability: desertification, water scarcity, drop in agricultural production and a population explosion. I think Syria is the third country in the world in terms of population growth, people moving to urban areas and lack of job opportunities. Syria needs 300,000 job opportunities each year and they are mostly unavailable. I’m not even talking about politics, sectarianism, oppression and other issues.