[Salon] Revealed: How Israel Turned Nazi War Criminals Into Mossad Agents - Haaretz Magazine - Haaretz.com



In the same vein as what I just sent, with this being coincidental to something I said a day or so ago, with me just seeing this article at bottom yesterday,  but going to my point about an American “New Fascism,” (30+ years of non-stop Perpetual War, secret detentions, torture so celebrated it helped Trump win election - WTF would you call it?)  in collusion with Israel’s “New Fascists,” dba “Conservatives.” And colluding with Kohelet Forum, Tikvab Fund, Federalist Society, National Conservatives, CPAC, et al. in propagating “New Fascism."

BLUF (from article below): "Orbach’s new book is based on extensive archival research, which included the study of documents from German intelligence, the CIA and the Mossad. Its subjects are Nazis who held various positions in Hitler’s Germany and looked for new occupations after 1945. “The waste matter of history,” he calls them. “It was truly impossible to be a Nazi in the old sense after 1945. They were substantively different in every possible way from the Nazis. Not morally, but in their worldview, at the political and strategic level and also ideologically, because the world was different and because of the appalling defeat. After a defeat like that, you can’t preserve your ideology in full.”

So what cultural influence did they have on the “Democracies,” the US, UK, and Israel, besides as CIA and Mossad intelligence officers? It can be seen today in the following cases: 

BLUF: "Instead, I pick up a booklet with a plan for ridding government ministries of their legal gatekeepers through a wholesale reform of the Israeli judicial system; . . . 

"There is something ironic in Taub’s rants about global elites at a conference sponsored by American mega-donors that seeks to introduce an American-style conservative agenda and its tactics to Israeli politics. But this contradiction is not unique to Israel; the American New Right is now a global phenomenon, with elites of its own, much like American liberalism. Yet while major Israeli left-wing organizations that receive foreign funding — from B’Tselem to this very website — were born out of a local context, the Tikvah Fund is a top-down operation, explicit in its promotion and importing of an American conservative terminology and agenda in Israel.

"Take, for example, the Israel Law & Liberty Forum, one of Tikvah Fund’s flagship operations, which states on its About Us page that it is “inspired by the [American] Federalist Society,” a U.S. legal organization that has served as the breeding ground for new generations of hyper-conservative and libertarian lawyers and jurists. Similarly, the Israel Law & Liberty Forum operates as a network of conservative attorneys, judges, and law students, and promotes “judicial restraint, individual liberty, and limited government.”


***********

To that latter point, I can only say: Bullshit! With these two chapters of a book providing a US originating ideological attack on “liberalism,” in its historical meaning from the Enlightenment period, so denounced by these Conservative. And now, by National Conservatives, deservedly entitled to their Italian title, Nazional Conservatives (NaziCons, following convention), as an outline right out of Carl Schmitt’s legal theory, for what is taking place as the "Legal Revolution" in both Israel and the U.S.:

Attachment: 8. Derailment and the Modern Crisis.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 4. Rights and the Virginia Declaration.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

  


Then there’s this, with what we now know as the “Ideological Origins” of the Legal Revolution which I have referred to previously: 
 

The Conservative U.S. Group Trying to

Transform Israel's Justice System

With inspiration and cooperation from the Federalist Society, the organization that’s behind the appointment of most of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, the Law and Liberty Forum has the money, connections and clout to spur a similar process in Israel

And let's not forget our old friend Yoram Hazony on this email list, where he is so popular, with these files an introduction to his “anti-Enlightenment” thought, sharing with the authors of the files above an unrelenting enmity to the the “Enlightenment Liberal” ideas which our Constitution was founded upon. Notwithstanding the effort of the fanatical “anti-Liberal” authors of the two files above to substitute the Federalist Papers, disproportionately written by the would-be monarchist Alexander Hamilton, explaining why they substituted the Federalist Papers for the Constitution we have, as the anti-Constitutionalists they were, and their followers are. With this (which I’ve shared before), linking all these anti-Constitutional Conservative fanatics together:

 

Attachment: Pages from Part 1-4 compressed.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


And from Hazony, BLUF (pp. 52- 57): "Executive Power Vested in One Man"

Quote: "Uniting the American nation and briging it under an effective national government was the most prominent Federalist goal, which early
American nationalists pursued by a variety of means. The best-known part of this program was the Federalists' support for a powerful chief executive modeled on the British one. It is difficult today to fully appreciate how offensive the unitary chief executive was to enthusiasts of Enlightenment rationalism, who insisted on a plural executive-in effect, government by a committee-as a crucial impediment to tyranny.”

“Divided powers” is hardly “government by a committee," but that’s the least of the errors in this “Constitutional History” published by Regnery Publishing. So that, to  paraphrase the Goldwater campaign of 1964: In your heart, you know it's wrong!

By the way, would someone tell me where to find this “British/English Constitution” so beloved by Hazony and American Conservatives? Which, only in the last century, the early 1900s - 1920s, were provisions defining and prohibiting “sedition” as even just disrespectful words directed toward the Monarch or their “consort” made slightly less onerous. Look it up in Blackstone. Little wonder that those who hate “rights,” would love Hazony, Kendall, and the so-called “British Constitution,” with its limited guarantee of “rights.” Guaranteed for decades only due to the “modernization” coming out of “Enlightenment Liberalism’s” French “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

,” and the U

.S. Constitution, however imperfectly they were applied. Both of which Conservatives so despise (of both U.S. party’s, as they’ve “fused” together ideologically on “government authority") , as can be seen in the attached files. 


How popular and influential is Yoram Hazony with American Conservatives, and The American Conservative magazine? See for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0hKwunM64I (Burtka was previously with TAC) 




For more on Hamilton and his "political theory,” the following quotes are helpful (I know not of this website, but Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a libertarian, which when they get “history” correct, I won’t avoid using the information they provide, even if I may have other disagreements with them on overall “economic theory.”  


Hamilton, Neoconservatives, and National Greatness (p. 6)

[David] Brooks and his fellow neoconservative William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, began their crusade for “national greatness conservatism” with a 1997 Wall Street Journal article that urged conservatives to reinvigorate “the nationalism of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay and Teddy Roosevelt.”  Using the powers of the federal government to achieve some kind of “national greatness,” as they favour, is vintage Hamiltonianism and could not possibly be farther from the Jeffersonian tradition, which held that government in a free society has no business engaging in such foibles.

Traditional Conservatism was Objectively Statist (p. 6)

Why does the author imply that “traditional conservatism” was ever opposed to big government?  Hamilton is a traditional conservative.

Traditional conservatism was aimed at defending and restoring the ancien régime.  What better or more succinct way to describe Hamilton’s objective?Chapter 1: The Rousseau of the Right

The New York Post (p. 10)

In his private career [Hamilton] became a…founder of the New York Post newspaper (founded for the purpose of smearing Jefferson).

Hamilton Owned Slaves (pp. 10–11)

Hamilton was not a plantation owner like Jefferson, but an aristocratic New Yorker.  Like Jefferson—and many other New York aristocrats—he was a slave owner who nevertheless at times spoke eloquently in opposition to the institution of slavery.

Hamilton’s wife, Eliza, was from a prominent and wealthy New York slave-owning family (the Schuylers) and retained some of the “house slaves” after marrying Hamilton.  This fact is usually soft-pedaled by Hamilton’s more worshipful biographers.  “Hamilton…may have had a slave or two around the house” and “was too much a man of his age…to push for emancipation,” wrote the Cornell University historian and Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter, a onetime editor of The Federalist Papers.  (Jefferson, on the other hand, endorsed a plan to end the slave trade early in the Revolution; condemned King George III for introducing slavery into America, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence; laid out a plan for the abolition of slavery in Virginia, in Notes on the State of Virginia; and proposed blocking the spread of slavery in the Northwest Territory in 1784.)

Chernow oddly labels Hamilton an “abolitionist,” despite the fact that he owned slaves and never endorsed abolition per se.  He also bends over backward to downplay Hamilton’s slave ownership, at one point arguing that, yes, he purchased six slaves at a slave auction, but they were “probably” for his brother-in-law—as though that makes the purchase of human beings less immoral.

Liberty or Empire (p. 12)

Both men [Jefferson and Hamilton] fully understood what was at stake:  Would the American government mimic the British and pursue “national greatness,” “imperial glory,” and empire, as Hamilton preferred?  Or would the primary purpose of government be the modest Jeffersonian one of protecting the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens?  Both men understood that empire would mean that government would become the master, rather than the servant, of the people, as it had been for generations in the Old World.

The founding generation certainly understood that the colonists of an empire could and would be treated as tax slaves or cannon fodder.  This was the history of the Old World, and they had fought a revolution to escape such a fate.  But the “nationalists,” led by men like Hamilton and centered in New York and New England, also understood that life could be quite grand for those who managed and ruled over an empire.  That’s why his party—the Federalists—fought so hard and long for a much more powerful, consolidated, monopolistic government and for mercantilist economic policies.

Hamilton the Nationalist (p. 13)

[Clyde] Wilson has also made an important distinction between a “nationalist” and a patriot:  “Patriotism is the wholesome, constructive love of one’s land and people.  Nationalism is the unhealthy love of one’s government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to put down others—which becomes in deracinated modern men substitute for religious faith.  Patriotism is an appropriate, indeed necessary, sentiment for people who wish to preserve their freedom; nationalism is not.”  Alexander Hamilton is generally acknowledged as being the most famous nationalist in American history.

Hamilton Wants Empire (p. 14)

As Clinton Rossiter explained, “Hamilton’s overriding purpose was to build the foundations of a new empire.”  He dreamed of governmental “glory” that “could reach out forcefully and benevolently to every person,” said Rossiter.  (Never mind that force and benevolence are more often than not opposites.)

Hamilton Wanted a Monarchy (pp. 16–17)

At the convention Hamilton proposed a permanent president and senate, with all political power in the national government, as far away as possible from the people, and centered in the executive.  He also wanted “all laws of the particular states, contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States [government], to be utterly void,” and he proposed that “the governor…of each state shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative [i.e, a veto] upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is a governor.”

In plainer language, Hamilton proposed a kind of “king” who would yield supreme power over all people, who in turn would have essentially no say in how their government was run.  The states would be mere provinces whose governors would be appointed by and loyal to the “king.”  Under such a regime, all political power in the nation would be exercised by the chief executive and his circle of advisors, which would undoubtedly have included Alexander Hamilton as perhaps the chief advisor.

But the convention did not embrace Hamilton’s plan for executive dictatorship and monopoly government.  …[John] Taylor noted that the convention attendees viewed the Constitution as a compact among the free and independent states and not as the creation of a “national” government.

Paradoxical Federalist Arguments (p. 19)

[Senator John] Taylor noted that the proponents of consolidation relied on “paradoxical” arguments.  They contended, he said, “that the greater the [government] revenue, the richer are the people; that frugality in the government is an evil; in the people, a good;…that monopolies and exclusive privileges are the general welfare; that a division of sovereignty will raise up a class of wicked, intriguing, self-interested politicians in the states; and that human nature will be cleansed of these propensities by a sovereignty consolidated in one government.”

Hamilton Lies (p. 20)

[H]istorian Richard B. Morris wrote that Hamilton “constantly sought to reassure the states’ rights politicians [the Jeffersonians] that state sovereignty would never be jeopardized” by the new Constitution; yet he hoped to abolish state sovereignty once the Constitution was adopted.  He also promised, during the constitutional debates at the New York ratifying convention, that the U. S. Congress would never contemplate “marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another” for any reason.  But as we will see, when he became treasury secretary he personally accompanied President George Washington and some thirteen thousand (mostly conscripted) troops into Pennsylvania to attempt to quell the so-called Whiskey Rebellion.

Big Government is For Special Interests (pp. 23–24)

To claim that government policies that benefit small but powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of society are really “in the public interest” is an ancient political tactic.  …  But no government policy can be said to be in “the public interest” unless it benefits every member of the public.  And this is a rare if not nonexistent occurrence in any democracy.

Hamilton was an American mercantilist, and he and his party (and its political heirs, the Whigs and Republicans) advocated special-interest policies that would primarily benefit politically connected merchants, manufacturers, speculators, and bankers at the expense of the rest of the public.  The “public interest” rhetoric was (and is) an indispensable political smoke screen if they were to achieve political success.  The wool must be pulled over the public’s eyes with “public interest” rhetoric if mercantilism were to succeed.  Jefferson and his political compatriots, such as John Taylor, saw through it.

Hamilton’s Implied and Resulting Powers (pp. 28–29)

Not only were there supposedly “implied” powers in the Constitution that only the wise and lawyerly like Hamilton recognized (but that were foreign to James Madison, who like Jefferson was a strict constructionist), there were also “resulting powers,” Hamilton argued.

Thus, if the government engaged in an unconstitutional war of conquest and succeeded, the unconstitutional “powers” would magically become constitutional, in Hamilton’s opinion.  Taken to its logical ends, this argument implies that any action of government would be de facto “constitutional” by virtue of the fact that the action occurred.  This is how Hamilton viewed the Constitution—as a potential blank check for unlimited powers of government.

Hamilton the Militarist (p. 32)

It was also Hamilton who invented the theory of “war powers.”  The Constitution does give the central government the power to “provide for the commmon Defence,” but Hamilton interpreted that to mean that unlimited resources should be given to the military, including conscription and a standing army in peacetime.  (The Constitution itself specifically limited the existence of a standing army to two years.)  In Federalist no. 23 Hamilton wrote that the resources of the military “ought to exist without limitation.”  He also wanted government to nationalize all industries related to the military, which in today’s world would mean virtually all industries.



Revealed: How Israel Turned Nazi War Criminals Into Mossad Agents - Haaretz Magazine - Haaretz.com

A photo of Alois Brunner, as it appears in the fugitive war criminal’s Mossad file. He escaped death more than once.

A photo of Alois Brunner, as it appears in the fugitive war criminal’s Mossad file. He escaped death more than once.

One day, two and a half years ago, the Jerusalem-based historian Danny Orbach received a surprising phone call from his wife. She told him that a “huge, fat envelope” was sticking precariously out of their mailbox, and that it bore the logo of the Prime Minister’s Office.

When Orbach got home, he was astounded to discover that the Mossad had sent him internal documents that – until then – had been classified, and so were inaccessible to both scholars and the general public. The items were related to a historical phenomenon he was investigating: Nazi war criminals who were employed as mercenaries all over the world during the Cold War. Some of them worked for West Germany, others for the Soviet Union and the United States; some assisted Arab countries and some even collaborated with the Jewish state.

Orbach, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, had waited a long time for the documents. “At first, I tried to work through all kinds of people I knew in the organization, but it didn’t help,” he says. “Afterward, I decided to try the most official way. I got in touch with the spokesperson’s unit at the Prime Minister’s Office [to which the Mossad is accountable], and I waited for a reply. I was already quite desperate, though I had been warned that things in that organization move slowly.”

The documents in the envelope helped Orbach write his latest book, “Fugitives: A History of Nazi Mercenaries during the Cold War” (Pegasus Books, 2022, with the Hebrew translation published this month by Kinneret-Zmora Bitan). But Orbach was not the only one who ever received a fat envelope from the Mossad. Another was Alois Brunner, though the contents of his envelope were very different. Brunner, who was Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, fled after the war to Egypt and subsequently settled in Syria.

Jerusalem-based historian Danny Orbach, who investigated the stories of Nazi war criminals who were employed as mercenaries all over the world during the Cold War.

“As Eichmann’s chief aide, he was responsible for multiple genocidal crimes,” Orbach notes. “He was a solver of problems that arose during the deportations and was in charge of a systematic apparatus of hunting people, of plunder and of transport to the camps.” Beginning in the mid-1950s, under a new identity he stole from another former SS official – Georg Fischer – he found new allies. “He chose to devote his life to the Arab struggle,” Orbach says. Living in an apartment in an affluent Damascus neighborhood, Brunner worked for the Syrian intelligence services and was also an arms dealer, notably with Middle Eastern countries that were Israel’s enemies.

On top of this, he came up with a number of outlandish ideas. For example, after the capture of Eichmann in 1960, he suggested that the Syrians mount a seaborne commando operation in which they would infiltrate Israel and liberate the escaped Nazi from prison. Another brainstorm idea of his for springing Eichmann was to abduct Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress, and offer to trade him in exchange for the Nazi's release.

Orbach did not attribute much significance to those plans, but there is no doubt that they were conceived during what was a very tense period in Israel. Attesting to this is an entry in Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s diary, noting that Nazi gangs were plotting to disrupt Eichmann’s trial. Referring to the same subject, Mossad chief Isser Harel warned that Eichmann’s lawyer was in touch with a group whom he termed “a very dangerous and contemptible gang of Nazis ... of arch-murderers, among them ... some we are looking for.”

At this point, the role of the envelope sent to Brunner by the Mossad begins to loom. In the summer of 1960, the Mossad received information suggesting that Brunner was hiding under an assumed name in Damascus. The Israeli agency took up the gauntlet and made the decision to assassinate him, tasking one of its operatives, Yitzhak Shamir – later Israel’s prime minister – with organizing the mission. He sent to Damascus a former member of Lehi – the pre-state militia that Shamir had led – who spoke fluent Arabic (and whose identity remains unknown). In May 1961, the agent infiltrated the Syrian capital, made his way to Brunner’s front door and identified him, but did not assault him. “Killing the target on the spot was out of the question. Carrying out an assassination in the heart of an Arab capital would have been utterly insane,” Orbach says.

With Brunner’s whereabouts ascertained, Shamir received an “explosive envelope” for the killing, flew to Europe with it and handed it to the agent. The latter returned to Damascus, this time with intent to kill. He dropped off the envelope, addressed to Brunner, at the main post office. The German war criminal opened the envelope on September 13, 1961; the explosion left him blind in his right eye and semi-paralyzed in his left arm. Nineteen years later, in 1980, the Mossad tried again to kill Brunner, again via an exploding envelope that he opened. This time he was badly burned and lost several fingers.

The Mossad didn’t succeeded in assassinating Brunner, but the closing years of his life were distressful for him. In the book, Orbach describes how, after Brunner fell out of favor with the regime, he languished in the cellars of the Syrian secret police "in a tiny, windowless basement cell, without sunlight or medical care.

"He had to subsist on military rations, and choose every day between either an egg or a potato,” Orbach writes. The information was compiled from various sources in a number of languages, including recorded interviews with Brunner’s guards, to which he obtained access. “Luckily, I learned spoken Syrian in the army,” he says. Brunner died in 2001 and is buried in a Muslim cemetery in the Syrian capital. “His archive is in the presidential palace in Damascus. If Assad should ever fall, we might yet learn new and surprising things,” Orbach says.

Dark figure

Orbach, 41, studied history, first at Tel Aviv University and then at Harvard, where he received his doctorate. Currently he teaches military history at the Hebrew University. His interests cover a wide range of subjects, among them the history of intelligence, coups, political assassinations and military disobedience. His first book, “The Plots against Hitler” (English edition 2016), dealt with German resistance movements from 1933 to 1945. The second, “Curse on This Country: The Rebellious Army of Imperial Japan” (2017), is about rebellion and disobedience in the Japanese officer corps during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Orbach’s new book is based on extensive archival research, which included the study of documents from German intelligence, the CIA and the Mossad. Its subjects are Nazis who held various positions in Hitler’s Germany and looked for new occupations after 1945. “The waste matter of history,” he calls them. “It was truly impossible to be a Nazi in the old sense after 1945. They were substantively different in every possible way from the Nazis. Not morally, but in their worldview, at the political and strategic level and also ideologically, because the world was different and because of the appalling defeat. After a defeat like that, you can’t preserve your ideology in full.”

Several possibilities were available to the “new Nazis.” Some continued to adhere to an antisemitic and antidemocratic line, but dropped the struggle against communism. As such, they were able to serve the Soviet Union. Others, who stuck to a distinctly anti-communist line but no longer espoused antisemitism or an antidemocratic viewpoint, worked for the United States. Another group continued to be rabid antisemites and chose to do battle against the Jewish people and Israel, but adopted a new ideology of ostensibly struggling against colonialism, which involved displaying empathy for the developing world and for various “races.”

And there were also those who went on “hating everyone,” as Orbach puts it. They remained neutral on paper, but “incited between the sides that were involved in the Cold War – Americans, Germans, Russians, Arabs, even Israelis – with the aim of getting as rich as possible without committing to any of them,” Orbach says. Some of these fugitive Germans are described as greedy adventurers, some as professional con men. This ideological flexibility accounts for the presence of Nazi mercenaries in every corner of the global arena in which the superpowers faced off in the 1950s and ‘60s. Some of them fantasized about a brilliant future of “Nazi-inspired” revolutions in the developing world, of spectacular terrorist attacks on Jewish targets and the like.

The intelligence services that were their collaborators also sometimes deluded themselves. The CIA, for example, believed that it was essential to utilize Hitler’s former henchmen in order to triumph over the Soviet Union.

The intelligence services of the Jewish state, which was surrounded by enemies, also did not balk at employing former Nazis. One of the more complex cases in this connection is that of Walter Rauff, a German war criminal with buckets of blood on his hands. Rauff played a key role in the development of the Nazis’ mobile murder facilities, the “gas vans” that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Rauff was also one of those tasked with establishing a unit whose objective was to annihilate the Jews of Palestine and to expand the Holocaust into the Levant in general – a plan that ultimately remained only on paper.

ולטר ראוף

Nazi war criminal Walter Rauff.Credit: AP

He was later posted to Tunisia, Greece and Italy, and in each country he persecuted Jews and resistance fighters alike. After the war, Rauff escaped any trial or punishment. He too joined the collection of Nazis who found refuge in Syria, becoming a military aide to the Syrian dictator Husni Za’im, the capacity in which he helped train the Syrian intelligence services “‘along Gestapo lines.’ Among other things, he designed torture devices to interrogate and terrorize Syrian Jews,” Orbach writes.

In 1949, following a change of government in Syria, Rauff was expelled from the country, and he relocated to South America. On the way, in Italy, he picked up surprising new masters: the Israelis. Bitter at the Syrians for throwing him out, Rauff agreed to sell information to Israel. His handler was Shalhevet Freier, a Foreign Ministry official who was one of the founders of Israel’s nuclear project. At the time, Rauff was posted in Rome to collect intelligence about Arab states. Rauff supplied the Israelis with detailed information about the situation in Syria and also agreed to become an Israeli agent in Egypt, but then decided to move to Ecuador instead. He remained in touch with Freier until 1951.

Did Freier feel comfortable about employing a Nazi? Apparently not, because at first he kept it secret even from headquarters in Tel Aviv, perhaps out of concern that he would be ordered to break off contact with the new agent. When he finally did report about Rauff, he was surprised to discover that the Foreign Ministry found no reason to object to the ex-Nazi’s employment. At the same time, the service he did Israel did not accord him immunity: In 1980, a Mossad team was sent to assassinate him. The squad planned to waylay him outside his house in Chile, where he had eventually settled down, but his wife started to shout and his dog barked. He died about a year later from cancer, entering the history books as a Nazi criminal who was both an agent of the Mossad and on its hit list.

Rauff was not the only war criminal Israel employed. Among the documents that awaited Orbach’s perusal in the envelope from the Mossad, he also found the file for the recruitment and employment of Otto Skorzeny, a former officer in the Waffen-SS who also worked with the Mossad. "There were more redactions there than [visible] lines," Orbach notes, referring to the censorship that continues to deny researchers full access to these historic documents. Still, he adds, he was able to find out “far more” about Skorzeny from other documents the Mossad sent him.

מחקר שכירי חרב נאצים

The Mossad file on Otto Skorzeny. "There were more redactions there than [visible] lines," Orbach notes.

A “shady figure” is Orbach’s summation of Skorzeny. In World War II, he gained fame in commando operations, notably the daring raid that freed the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini from captivity in September 1943. After the war he became a businessman, arms dealer and mercenary “who was constantly looking for adventures to overcome his boredom,” Orbach writes. He helped recruit military advisers for Syria and was involved in various deals with German experts who were advisers in Egypt’s missile program.

In 1960, Mossad chief Harel considered launching a manhunt for him, but his successor, Meir Amit, preferred to prepare the ground to recruit him as a source for the organization. Rafi Meidan, a former commander of Amal, the Mossad’s Nazi-hunting unit, was assigned to the mission. To get to Skorzeny, he first befriended his wife, Ilse. According to various reports, the two conducted an intimate relationship, which ultimately paved the way to her husband, with whom she maintained an “open relationship,” according to the Mossad report. After setting up a meeting with the target, Meidan brought in Avraham Ahituv, a future director of the Shin Bet security service.

Ahituv and Skorzeny met in a Madrid hotel. For Ahituv it was a tortuous task, as he “hated what he was doing,” Orbach says. Ahituv immediately brought up the elephant in the room and spoke about the Holocaust. Skorzeny asserted that he had not taken part in the annihilation of Jews. Later, he surprised Ahituv by saying that he liked Israel, which he described as a small, daring country whose people even “excel in physical work.” Israel, he added, is the solution to antisemitism, and all Jews should immigrate there. Afterward the two became absorbed in an argument about the “Jewish question,” and only then arrived at the subject that was the reason for their meeting: Skorzeny’s recruitment by Israel to scuttle activity by German rocket scientists in Egypt.

אוטו סקורצני

Otto Skorzeny, a former officer in the Waffen-SS who also worked with the Mossad.Credit: USHMM / courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration / College Park

According to the Mossad’s in-house report as well as Meidan’s own testimony, Skorzeny did not ask for money, but rather requested one “small” favor: help in clearing his name and getting himself removed from the most-wanted list compiled by Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal. Those requests were not fulfilled, but the collaboration still went ahead. Long afterward, Mossad agent Rafi Eitan told journalist and author Ronen Bergman that in his view, Skorzeny hoped that collaborating with the Israelis would ensure that he avoided Eichmann’s fate. Only the Mossad, he thought, could offer him “a life without fear.” From the Mossad documents, Orbach also learned that the connection between Skorzeny and his Israeli handlers continued in the years that followed as well.

Our man in Damascus

In addition to the material from the Mossad, Orbach drew heavily on the archives of the German intelligence services. When he talks about perusing documents belonging to the BND, the Federal Intelligence Agency, it almost seems that his nonfiction book has given rise to a plot in which the author is a character. “I had to apply to an email address and then wait,” he recalls. “In Germany, as opposed to Israel, you can be sure you’ll get a reply. German federal legislation stipulates that a German governmental authority, be it the postal service or an espionage agency, is obligated to reply to everyone who contacts it – and they absolutely uphold that law.” Thus, a few months later, “I did indeed receive a letter stating that my request was being processed, and then another few months went by before another letter arrived inviting me to set a date for a visit by calling a certain phone number.”

So the day arrived when Orbach found himself at the entrance to the BND headquarters in Berlin, which he recalls as a threatening building “that looks like the castle of a villain from a James Bond movie – huge, gray and heavy, like a citadel.” His hosts, who did not introduce themselves, told him to leave his phone at the entrance and took him via elevators and labyrinthine corridors to an empty office whose only furnishing was a desk. “They brought the files, told me until what time I could stay and how to leave the premises for lunch – they escort you to anywhere place that’s farther than the washroom,” he says.

There was, however, one important document he didn’t succeed in obtaining through the official archives of that or any other intelligence agency. It was a cable in which Eli Cohen, Israel’s spy in Damascus, referred to the Nazis he met there. “In the end I found it quoted in a book by [Israeli journalist] Uri Dan from the 1960s,” he says, and points out what every novice historian eventually learns: In some cases, what is hidden by censorship in one place, is open in another. You just have to know where to look.

And that’s how Eli Cohen, who was sent to Syria by Unit 188 of Military Intelligence, ended up being mentioned in a study dealing with Nazi mercenaries in the Cold War. Cohen arrived in Damascus in 1962, equipped with a miniature Morse code transmitter concealed in a double-bottomed cigarette pack, powerful explosives camouflaged as soap, a shortwave radio and other espionage accessories. He posed as an Argentine businessman of Syrian origin named Kamel Amin Thaabet. His original mission was to provide information about military and political developments in Syria. But his superiors also asked him to find out what he could about German war criminals in Damascus.

“Despite the Mossad’s failure to assassinate Brunner, the Israelis still wanted information about his whereabouts, as well as about his escaped colleague Franz Rademacher, the expert on Jews in the Nazi Foreign Ministry and a mass murderer in his own right,” Orbach writes. Already in June 1962, before his first home leave, he received a message from Tel Aviv asking him for more information about Brunner and other Nazis who were in hiding.

הדיפלומט פרנץ ראדמאכר

Franz Rademacher, the expert on Jews in the Nazi Foreign Ministry and a mass murderer in his own right. Spy Eli Cohen had reported on the Nazi criminal’s location to his handlers in Tel Aviv.Credit: AP

Cohen was able to ingratiate himself with the circle of Arab Nazis in Damascus. Brunner stated afterward that Cohen had visited his apartment, but Orbach found no evidence of this, though “Cohen definitely kept an eye on Brunner,” he says. In contrast, a visit Cohen made to Rademacher is documented. In their conversation Rademacher said that “the Jews and the Germans are looking for me everywhere. They are unjustly accusing me of killing Jews during the war.” The next day, Cohen reported to Tel Aviv about the Nazi criminal’s location and noted that he was working for Syrian intelligence. He provided his precise address and also his wife’s name. He concluded the message: “I am ready to kill Rademacher.”

“From Cohen’s point of view, that visit was a very bad idea, because Rademacher was under the close surveillance of the Syrian secret police. A year earlier he had been recruited to the Federal Intelligence Agency, via worldwide neo-Nazi connections,” Orbach writes.

The Mossad, to which responsibility for running Cohen had passed from Military Intelligence, wasn’t enthusiastic about the suggestion of eliminate the Nazi in Damascus. Its top brass “would not let their prize asset in Damascus risk himself with a reckless assassination of dubious value,” Orbach writes. The message Cohen received was unequivocal: “refrain at all costs from any action regarding R. [Rademacher] that may foil your main task. Maintain your interest in R. and send us more information about him.” Subsequently a blunter message was received: “Leave him alone and focus on your main task.”

Orbach thinks that Cohen’s handlers in Tel Aviv made a serious mistake by not instructing him from the start to keep away from Nazis. “For a spy such as Cohen with such a brittle cover story, the attempt to approach such people (and certainly to plot their assassination) was sheer madness,” Orbach contends in his book.

Not long after their meeting, Rademacher was arrested by Syrian security agents and accused of being a spy. Subsequently he was deported to West Germany. Is that the reason that Cohen’s real identity was revealed? “As we know, there are a great many arguments about why and how Eli Cohen was caught. Instead of continuing to poke around in that little corner, I expand the canvas and show how Cohen’s story was intertwined with the story of the Nazis and the German espionage networks in Damascus, and with his attempts – clumsy and dangerous – to hunt down Nazis,” Orbach told Haaretz.

The relations between Syria and the West deteriorated, he explains, and Damascus started to tilt increasingly toward the Soviet Union. “Syria became fed up with the array of German double agents and crushed the different espionage networks that were based on former Nazis,” Orbach says.

“Against this background of spy hysteria, the Syrians suddenly took seriously one of Eli Cohen’s neighbors, a retiree of the security services, who informed on him after expressing suspicions all along, as well as an alert posted by the Indian Embassy to the effect that someone was interfering with their transmissions. That, in my opinion, was the background to the request for aid from the Soviet Union in locating the source of the transmissions, which in the end led to the arrest of Eli Cohen.”



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.