The documentary series "Fighter 566" about Eli Cohen is an impressive journalistic and documentary achievement. The filmmakers carried out a branch investigation, obtained original documents and interviewed witnesses and historians in Israel and in the Arab world (proper disclosure: I also appear in the second chapter). The story of the series is multidimensional, complex, engaging and well-backed. However, it is hard to ignore the very problematic interpretation of the series' creators to some of the historical sources available to them. In particular, this is stated in Eli Cohen's testimony in Damascus, which was uncritically called by the filmmakers, and even biased towards a very specific conception of ethnic rift in the early days of the state. 

Already in the first chapter of the series, excerpts from the trial protocol were widely cited, including those reflecting Cohen's resentment of the establishment's attitude toward him as Oriental. In the lines widely cited in a review of the series in the press, Cohen says the Ashkenazis control all positions of power in the country, calling the Mizrahim "black" and discriminating against them in every respect. Thus his father, who was a wealthy merchant in Alexandria, degraded bread in Israel.

It is quite possible that Eli Cohen disliked sectarian power relations in Israel, but this should not be deduced from the trial protocol. As part of my research, I read quite a few protocols of infidelity and espionage, and I also delved into Eli Cohen's trial. In an investigation or trial situation, and in particular one that runs against an arbitrary and murderous system, the defendant or the interrogator naturally tries to please the investigators and tell them what they want to hear. This is the case with investigations by opponents of regimes or spies in the KGB, in front of the Nazi tribunal, in Syria, and to some extent even in controlled and democratic countries. 

Sometimes the defendant tries to protect his partners in fact. In other cases, he gives incorrect dates to shorten the length of time the researcher asks about it, or speaks the ideological language acceptable to the researcher to improve his condition. 

It is a mistake to assume that Eli Cohen knew for sure that Dino was doomed, so he told the truth. Even in hostile Arab countries such as Egypt, Israeli spies are sometimes released in barter. So he had an existential interest in his investigators and judges, and at the very least did not confront them. Anyone who reads the trial protocol is present in the intimidating and anti-Semitic atmosphere that prevailed - in the curses, shouts and insults inflicted on the accused, for example, or the judge's implication that the Jews learned to be traitors and spies from the Gemara. It's not an atmosphere where people choose to speak honestly.

Those who believe that Eli Cohen's remarks about Ashkenazi-Mizrahi relations in Israel represented his true position should ask themselves why he called Israel a "occupied Palestine" trial. Did he suddenly become a pro-Palestinian? Also, many of the things he told himself were clearly wrong. Not only did he not immigrate to Israel, as he said in the trial, but he was an underground Zionist activist in Egypt for a long time. He also tried to volunteer for the institution even before he was actually recruited. In this spirit, the initial sources of the case must be read, including the testimony of Eli Cohen in the court of Damascus.

Dr. Danny Orbach is a military historian, researcher of the history of intelligence from the Departments of History and Asian Studies at the Hebrew University