Jump to content

Talk:Eli Cohen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

This page needs extending by somebody who knows what the heck it's talking about...

yeah eli is a good spy he gave israel all the informations about syrian missile force . so in 1967 they lost


Good idea. I rewrote it completely. Here is the previous text:

National hero. Celebrated 'Nazi-Hunter'. Cohen is most famous for his part in the highly successful mossad operation whereby the Nazi War Criminal Adolf Eichmann. This was an overtly complicated and dangerous mission that took place in an anti-semetic Argentina.

Leaving the POV problem aside, Cohen had nothing to do with Eichmann. -- zero 10:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reverting information

[edit]

If you would like information, written by Eli's brother Maurice (who was a fellow agent), READ here. Please stop arbitrarily reverting information that is quite accurate. I am re-adding the information about the trees during the Six Days War and his alias's rank before being uncovered. --Stoopideggs2 15:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who you are talking too but I'd like a citation on the story. So far as I can tell the story is apocryphal. It's a documented fact that Eucalypts were first planted in the Golan/Upper Galilee region in the 19th century to assist with water retention in the soil. The place is full of them now (so many that as an Aussie staying on Kfar Blum I was reminded very much of Australia). Even if Eli Cohen had suggested planting the trees over the Syrian gun emplacements it is unlikely to have helped location of the sites by aircraft as the trees would have been anything but distinctive.
If I don't see a verifiable citation for the claim I will delete it. Robert Brockway 07:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to verifiable citations, please note my comment above that recognizes a primary source.
Read his biography here JewishVirtualLibrary
and here EliCohen.org--Stoopideggs2 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the eucalypts trees, I revisited one of the Syrian bunkers (on Tel Fachar) during my most recent trip to Israel earlier this month. What makes these trees that cover the bunkers distinguishable from the other eucalypts trees in the area is that they are densely clustered on top of strategic hills. Conversely, the eucalypts trees that are easily found throughout the valley were planted (by the Pioneers in the late 19th century and the IDF pre-'67) along the roads because they gave ample coverage for traveling cars/people/military personnel from Syrian mortars. Let me repeat: thousands of eucalypts trees line roads in the valleys below the Golan. It is nearly silly to see the region’s anomalous hills, which do signify the bunkers.
In regard to "most successful spies of all times". This is an objective view and therefore cannot be supported by evidence or facts. Objective views have no place in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.162.170 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for the documented use of water retention?
Be assured, I appreciate your endeavor for excellence and veracity. Stand on Tel Chai on a clear day and look into the valley to see for yourself.--Stoopideggs2 03:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improbably Story Removed

[edit]

I just removed this:

"On the eve of the Six Day War, two Syrian fighter jet flew towards Tel-Aviv with intent to heavily bomb the largely populated city. Israeli intelligence radiod the Syrian fighters, a message stating their real names and the names of their children. The threatened them saying that if they dropped their bombs, undercover agents would kill their families. The pilots then proceeded to drop their bombs on the sea, radio back to Syrian headquarters that the mission was a success and leave Israeli airspace."

For a start two fighters would not consistute heavy bombardment of a city the size of Tel-Aviv. Even if Israel could identify the planes in flight the claimed Israeli response is improbable. Syrian fighters entering Israeli airspace would have been shot down or forced back through force of arms. Robert Brockway 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"? and protection from the sun for the outposts.?"

[edit]

Amoruso 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this page?

[edit]

Is it just me or has this page completely changed? A couple weeks ago when I read it it must have been five times longer. Maybe I am thinking about a different article?

-Liore 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Egypt

[edit]

I added this article to WikiProject Egypt because Cohen spent his young life in Egypt and qualifies as an Egyptian-Israeli. Our goal is to cultivate articles relating to Egypt, so please discuss his removal here if you still think he doesn't qualify.

--Yitzhak1995 04:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weasel words

[edit]

'Although the story may be apocryphal many claim that Cohen suggested that eucalyptus trees should be planted around Syrian military bunkers and mortars on the Golan Heights that were targeting Israel.'

who claims exactly?

fairy tails like this have no place in an encyclopedia Rm uk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a commonly accepted story in Israel; If it's true is another story. I just did a google search and found it mentioned in an article. There is a book called "Mossad" with a chapter on Eli Cohen; it might be there. Itzse 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also an entire chapter on Eli Cohen in Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad by Gordon Thomas. This is no fairy tale nor is it a fairy "tail." :P --GHcool 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it. Gordon Thomas writes books in the sensationalist exposé category. Where is this reported by someone in a position to know for sure? --Zerotalk 05:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that the Syrians would have removed the trees knowing they were the gift of an Israeli spy and as such had an obvious purpose? The story is apocryphal and has zero credibility. Aldiboront (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen was a martyr, please do not delete category.

[edit]

Cohen was executed in martyr's square, damascus on the orders of his good friend Hafez al-Assad. He was a victim of political weakness on the part of the Alawite syrian ruling class, and a pawn in an espionage operation. Israel can ensure the return of Gilad Shalit by further increasing the price of Jewish blood, and ceasing to trade live criminals for dead soldiers. If Gilad Shalit is not released, Gaza will have some problems. 216.171.96.18 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking rubbish. Cohen was executed in 1965. The Alawites came to power in 1966 and Hafez al-Assad came to power in 1970. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted weasel-worded section

[edit]

I think Eli Cohen was a great guy and an important subject. But the "Achievements" section I deleted doesn't belong here. It was full of weasel-worded POV and unsourced speculation. What external references there were are totally unacceptable. A reference must be verifiable by the reader. "In Arabic" makes verification impossible by at least 90% of English-speaking readers. The article is fine without the opinionating, and there's a nice list for further reading. Unless the article (not polemic) can be expanded with verifiable secondary sources, let's leave it at that. J M Rice (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I emphasize THIS WAS FROM 2008. WP:STICK seriously applies here Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your decision to delete the "Achievements" section. I believe that it is an important part of the article and that it provides valuable information about Eli Cohen's contributions to Israel. The section is not full of weasel-worded POV and unsourced speculation. The information in the section is based on reliable sources, including books, articles, and interviews. The references in the section are also reliable and verifiable. I think you should set your antisemitism aside and follow the rules. What proof do you have that the sources are not verifiable? Vedisassanti (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t attack people Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No attack was made, I was simply disagreeing with him and calling their motives into question based on their history. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, calling someone antisemitic is a serious personal attack. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I called nobody an antisemite. I told them they should set their antisemitism aside, because the only person who would take a stand on "weasel-words" that don't exist in reference to a Jewish hero is obviously displaying at least some degree of antisemitism. As a Jewish person, I don't appreciate the harassment. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to glorify your personal hero is violating WP:NPOV. Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if you stop harassing me with lies. At what point have I ever claimed Cohen was my "personal hero" or that I was glorifying him. How is wanting someone's achievements to be accurately represented considered glorification.
It's clear that you are using the talk page to enact a witch hunt against me. For what reason I am unsure, but I'm asking you to cease. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the original comment was FROM 2008. Dronebogus (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction.

[edit]

What was he legally sentenced for: treachery or espionage? As a Syrian citizen or as an Israeli citizen? СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration and confidence building

[edit]

There's some 1960s-ish bad writing here that's lip-smacking, hackneyed and non-encyclopaedic in tone ('dazzling beauties', 'the spicier part of a spy's life'). This material is quoted from a poorly written online encyclopaedia, and it doesn't merit direct quotation. The segments of the quotation that are themselves enclosed in quotation marks aren't blessed with a primary source on the page from which they're copied.

This part needs to be rewritten, with proper sources given.

Notreallydavid (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eli Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eli Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia's claim of body

[edit]

Where is wrtiien "In 1965, Nadia, sent a letter to Hafez al-Assad...", maybe would have been to Amin al-Hafiz instead? Or in 1975? A source is needed. Regards, DPdH (talk)

Eli Cohen's love life in Damascus

[edit]

I don't see how AbuKhalil's speculation that he didn't have seventeen lovers belongs here. She just assumes that he's lying without offering any evidence. It's just hacky nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeatomic (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, AbuKhalil is male. Secondly, what he does is to point out that the speculations about Cohen's lovelife is just that: speculations. Either we take out all of the silly bragging, or we leave all of it in. Leaving just the first half in, as if it was an uncontested truth...that is not an option, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it was likely self-reported is fine. Speculating that Cohen "invented" this stuff doesn't belong here. Lukeatomic (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting everything according to him, is NOT fine. We know that a lot of false information was spread about Cohen, either by Cohen himself, or his employer, the Mossad. Please read Why ‘The Spy’ is a blend of fiction and fable, September 21, 2019, Sami Moubayed, or Netflix’s Mossad Propaganda, September 24, 2019, As’ad AbuKhalil, or any of the Arab sites that they refer to. Huldra (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABu Khalil s article is not a reliable source of historical fact. Stop edit warring this back in over the objections of at least 3 editors and seek consensus in this page, instead. Here come the Suns (talk)

As'ad AbuKhalil is a professor of political science, specialising on the Middle East. He is more of a RS than the vast majority of sources on this article. That various socks/editors who shouldn't be editing here does not appreciate that, doesn't change the facts, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He has no relevant history credentials which are the only thing that matters as far as this historical incident, And his work was not published in any academic outlet. Read WP:ONUS and stop revert warring this disputed content into the article unless you gain consensus for it. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AbuKhalil has more credentials that just about any author in this article. And there is no demand that RS should only be published in "academic outlet", as you are well aware of. (Half of wp's sources would have to be removed if that wasn't so.) And your "consensus" consist of "editors" who should not be editing this page, again, as you well know. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but disagree with it. Multiple editors have challenged this content, you now need to seek consensus for it, rather than edit-warring it back in. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me which editors (with edit count > 500) have challenged the content? Huldra (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you are of course absolutely not a sock. Anyone else? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. One is all it takes. Now, get to work on that consensus building. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, one person is not a consensus; that is plain silly. Please explain how two journalists writing in 1971 (when very little hard data had been released) are more reliable than a professor of ME politics writing today. You obviously can't. This opinion is obviously relevant and adequately sourced. Zerotalk 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me. Of course one person is not a consensus, but one person is enough to challenge disputed material introduced by another editor, which then places the WP:ONUS on the editor wishing to include disputed content to gain consensus for it. You'll notice Huldra is the only one edit-warring this content back into the article, while Lukeatomic and myself are opposed to it. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand you. Lukeatomic is not a E-C user so he/she doesn't count. And you haven't come up with a policy-based reason for your objection. Zerotalk 05:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the policy that says that the opinions of users who are not E-C don;t count. The policy based objections are WP:ONUS, WP:OR and WP:RS. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non E-C users can edit talk pages, (at least of not very contentious articles). But AFAIK they are not allowed to vote in say, a WP:RfC. (If they are not allowed to edit the page, why should they have a say in what will be on the page? That is simply not logical. But feel free to raise the issue at WP:ARCA, if you like), As for your "policy based objections": WP:OR and WP:RS are not relevant (we are talking about a professor in political science), and WP:ONUS is just as valid (if not more) for every single other source in the article. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn this the other way - if non E-C users can edit talk page, of course what they say there should matter- otherwise- why should they be allowed to edit the page? That is simply not logical. WP:OR is relevant to your editorial comment, not sourced to any reference, that "According to himself or Mossad,...". Being a professor at a 3rd tier university does not automatically make someone a reliable source on every topic. Abu Khalil is not a historian, has no special knowledge about the Mossad, Israel, or Syria. His opinion piece was published in a rather fringe outlet, and not cited by any reputable source , scholarly or otherwise. Out of curiosity, do you think his opinionated screed, published in the same piece , that "Netflix seems as closely tied to Mossad" can be used in tour article about Netflix? I mean, he's a professor! You are edit warring against the consensus. Not only will I be reverting you until you gain consensus for this edit, but if you keep it up, expect to be reported. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That "consensus" consists of you, yourself, "User:Here come the Suns"...oh, and then (lets not forget): "User:Here come the Suns" ....aaaaaaaaand "User:Here come the Suns". I am overwhelmed. And non E-C users can edit the user pages to suggest totally non-controversial edits; say, like my edit here could (and should) be allowed also for non E-C users, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a correct description of the facts. Beside me, the following editors have objected to, and/or removed your edits: Lukeatomic, LongFormCheddar, Silveter, Sindle71, IP editor 107.77.223.154, IP editor 24.214.59.97 and IP editor 2601:c0:c000:b4a:d841:76e2:9a7f:3442. You are edit warring against multiple editors, and you need to stop and try to get consensus here.Here come the Suns (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, none of the editors you mention should have edited the article at all. One can revert such "newbies" as many times as one like, as I am sure you know by now. So, my description is correct: "Here come the Suns" is the only editor (with 30/500 conditions fulfilled) who has disagreed with me, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They may or may not have been allowed to edit the article, but they were certainly allowed to express their opinions about your edits on this talk page, which some of them did, showing there is no consensus for your edits. I am happy you've stopped edit warring and initiated an RfC about this - I suggest you wait for its results. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are quite clear, "Edits by unregistered users and editors with less than 500 edits or 30 days tenure may be reverted without regarding the one revert rule." That someone wants to count the "uncountables", tells us more about them, than anything else, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They may be reverted w/o violating 1RR, but that does not mean that their opinion does not count.That someone wants to rule out opposing opinions not based on the merit of the argument, but on the basis of how many edits they've made, tells us more about them and the weakness of their own position, than anything else. There's a term for that here - WP:WIKILAWYERING Here come the Suns (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if any one of you had an argument worth listening too, I would have. So far what you have thrown at me has basically been WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (especially the latter), Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a correct description of facts. I've objected to you editorial comments on the grounds of WP:OR, and to the inclusion of material from a conspiracy theory monger (who happens to be an academic) on the grounds of WP:RS. Similar arguments have been made by the other editors objecting to your edits. Now settle down and wait for the RfC results. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets agree to disagree, then. That you think editors who should not edit the article should still have a say in what is in the article....is noted. (And obviously I will wait for the results from the RfC I started.) Huldra (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just me who thinks that, it is the opinion of the Arbitration committee who imposed these limitations in the first palce, who stated "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". Here come the Suns (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant words being "constructive comments"...POV comments might be happily ignored (And it is POV, when any other editor object to them) Huldra (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive comments include the policy-based opposition to your POV edits. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat: it is a POV edit, if anyone else object to it, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We get it, you think anyone who objects to your edits, is doing it out of POV, but your edits are always just neutral. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS
There is no consensus on whether As'ad AbuKhalil's writings about Eli Cohen should be included in the article. Some editors believe AbuKhalil is sufficiently qualified to be considered a reliable source, while other editors express concern about AbuKhalil's perceived bias.

A more specific proposal that indicates the portion of the source to be referenced and suggests language to be used in the article might gain consensus in the future. To clarify a misconception from the "Eli Cohen's love life in Damascus" section above, all editors (including editors who are not extended confirmed) are free to to participate in discussions and requests for comment on this page. — Newslinger talk 05:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should As'ad AbuKhalil writings about Eli Cohen be included in the article, or not? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC). Huldra (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- As should be clear from my prior comments, I agree that it should not be included. It is a biased, illogical article, not at all based on fact. The author's fixation on anti-Israel conspiracies tells us everything we need to know. The author's suggestion that the conventional knowledge of Cohen's exploits cannot be trusted because it could only have come from Cohen or Mossad smacks of classic anti-semitism. It doesn't belong here. Lukeatomic (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include - As'ad AbuKhalil is a professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, specialising on the Middle East (according to the books he has published). He is more of a WP:RS than virtually anything presently in the article, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — In fact almost nobody who knows the true facts of this story is motivated to tell them to us in unadorned fashion. There is no reason to trust As'ad AbuKhalil less than the two journalists whose hagiographic book is indirectly cited at this place. On the other hand, the same particular claim is available from Israeli sources and I put one of them in AbuKhalil's place. Zerotalk 04:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And now HctS has violated 1RR to alter my text to a statement that is weaker than what's in the source. This is disruptive editing. Zerotalk 08:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added new text to the article. Your entire contribution is still there. How is that a revert? A revert is not synonymous with "edit". Here come the Suns (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eli Cohen possibly referenced in Frederick Forsythe's book "The Odessa File"

[edit]

In Frederick Forsythe's 1972 book "The Odessa File" there is a passage that sounds a lot like part of the life of Eli Cohen. On page 21 of the book it discusses an Israeli agent who was the top agent in Egypt. He was captured in 1965 after a raid discovered a radio transmitter in his house. Dwnoone1 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

In the burial section can someone change:

Monthir Maosily was al-Assad's bureau chief, and he said in August 2008 that the Syrians had buried him three times to stop the remains from being brought back to Israel via a special operation

to:

Monthir Maosily, the former bureau chief of Hafez Al-Assad, claimed in August 2008 that the Syrians had buried him three times to stop the remains from being brought back to Israel via a special operation

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalypt trees

[edit]

The information about Eli Cohen's suggestion to plant trees in Syrian outposts in the Golan is widely considered as false in Israel. It was removed from the Hebrew article about him after no credible source for it was found. I have not read the source for the claim in this article, though. Tzafrir (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article calls it "an apocryphal claim", so it refutes the claim rather than supporting it. The way it is presented here is even worse: "and had trees planted at every position" as if he had the authority to command planting of trees, which is simply ridiculous. Zerotalk 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eli_Cohen&oldid=1196719349"