re: #561 ryannon

Charles commented that the sources were highly unreliable.

I hope that’s the case here.

It’s not so much that the original paper is unreliable as it is the fact that there is no further evidence for it and only the one paper has mentioned it.

How many times have we seen otherwise reliable sources try to make a story out of nothing? Its seems like it could well be the case with this one.

Ma’ariv in general is as legitimate as any other paper though. It’s just Hebrew-only.