Features
Was a Nazi war criminal living in St. James forced to hang himself by a Jewish “avenger” in 1960?
By BERNIE BELLAN The story of an alleged Nazi war criminal by the name of Alexander Laak, who was found hanging in his St. James garage in 1960, is one that has been revisited in this newspaper several times.
In October 1987, the late Gene Telpner first broached the story in our pages in one of his columns, when he wrote the following:
Quite a few columns ago I wrote about a book called “Forged in Fury”, which detailed the hanging in Winnipeg of an alleged war criminal by one or more Israeli “agents”.
They apparently had flown here, carried out the execution, and then caught a plane out of the city the same day.
At the time, the Free Press story reported the man’s death as a suicide, and the name given in the item was not his real one. His real name was Alexander Laak, and the wartime actions in which he allegedly participated took place in Estonia, near Tallin.
At one time, Laak worked at the RCAF base in Winnipeg. When he came to Canada from Europe he had received “clearance” from the British and Americans, but apparently the Russians wanted him back for further investigation.
Now all of this original story was in 1960, and not until 1970, when the book Forged in Fury was published, did the details emerge. Those details came as a shock to Arthur Drache, son of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Drache of this city, for several reasons.
For one, Arthur was a Free Press reporter when the “suicide” was printed and covered the story. Asked about it, Drache said, “We wrote a couple of stories “which received page one play, but did not give his name because of libel laws.”
But when Drache, who is now Arthur Drache Q.C. with the law firm of Drache Rotenberg in Ottawa, read “Forged in Fury”, he got full details for the first time. He wrote to the Free Press to tell them about the book’s revelations, but says he never got a response from the newspaper.
One of the saddest parts of the story to Drache is the fact that he and Laak’s son were classmates at Gordon Bell, and played on the school football team.
Laak was never publicly identified in Winnipeg while he was alive. It is believed that there had been accusations from some sources, but he protested his innocence.
Arthur Drache explained, “Only his ‘suicide’ allowed fuller disclosures and until I read “Forged in Fury” I was quite at a loss to explain his actions.”
Subsequently, in a February 20, 1991 issue of The Jewish Post & News, Myron Love had this story:
Manitoba RCMP looking into 30-year-old suicide of alleged Nazi
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have re-opened an investigation into the apparent suicide 30 years ago of an alleged Estonian Nazi living in Winnipeg. The new investigation was requested by the provincial Attorney-General’s Department, following an article on the case last winter in the Winnipeg Free Press, and a subsequent letter by a member of the public to the attorney-general, asking that this possible murder be investigated, in light of the war crimes prosecutions taking place in the country.
Alexander Laak was found hanging in his garage on September 6, 1960, according to Sargent Wes Border of the RCMP’s General Investigation Section. The section is looking into the matter, after a series of newspaper reports from the Soviet Union, alleging Laak was a Nazi collaborator. The Winnipeg police investigated his death at the time.
A coroner’s inquest, headed by Dr. I.O. Fryer, then the province’s chief medical officer, ruled the death an apparent suicide, and the case was closed.
In the early 1970s, an author named Michael Elkin published a book called “Forged in Fury”, in which he described how an Israeli agent named Arnie Berg came to Winnipeg from South America, and gave Laak the choice of committing suicide or having him and his wife killed by Berg.
Last February, Winnipeg Free Press reporter Dave Roberts wrote a story on the case, with reference to Elkins’ report. (Roberts is unavailable for comment. He is currently in the Middle East.) The article also led to the attack on retired journalist Keith Rutherford by a couple of Skinheads in Alberta last year. The Skinheads claimed they were paying him back for exposing Laak. One claimed to be Laak’s son, but there is no record of any family. (Ed. note: Gene Telpner’s story does disclose that Laak had a son – also someone whom Arthur Drache knew, so the notion that Laak’s son may have been part of a group that attacked Rutherford is certainly plausible.)
Sgt. Border isn’t optimistic the GIS investigation will turn up anything. “Thirty years is a long time,” he says. “People are dead. Reports are no longer available to us.”
He reports contacts have been made with the war crimes investigation unit in Ottawa to check their information on Estonian war crimes, and with Israel to find out if Elkin’s book was fact or fiction. “We’re waiting to hear back to see if we should look into this more seriously,” he says. “With everything going on in the Middle East, and considering this is 30 years old, I don’t expect this matter will be pushed to the forefront. It’s a case that will not be easy to investigate.”
We’re playing catch-up.”
In the summer of 2014 I had written about a book titled “The Avengers”, which was about a group of Holocaust survivors led by Abba Kovner (who went on to become a famous Israeli poet). Subsequent to that book review I was reminded of the story of Alexander Laak, and I decided to try to find out whether there was anything more I could find out about the story – which apparently had reached a dead end.
I decided to attempt to contact Arthur Drache who, Gene Telpner had written, had actually covered the story of Alexander Laak’s “suicide” in 1960. Arthur Drache has been one of Canada’s best known tax attorneys for many years, has been the recipient of many awards. Several years ago Gerry Posner profiled Arthur Drache in an article for our paper titled , which can be found on our website at .
I called Arthur Drache in 2014 – and was surprised when he answered his phone himself. In any event, I recall that Mr. Drache was quite obliging – and had vivid memories of his own personal involvement in the Alexander Laak story. Here is what I wrote in August 2014:
As Gene Telpner mentions in his story, in 1960 Drache was working as a reporter for the Free Press. Drache told me, during a phone conversation, that he was a student at Brandeis University at the time.
Drache says that his assignment editor had received a tip that Laak was living in Winnipeg. According to Drache, it came from a Russian source. The Estonian community in Winnipeg was quite small at the time, Drache said, and it was an easy matter for him to track Laak down.
He told me that he and another reporter went to Laak’s house in St. James and spent some time speaking with him. According to Drache, Laak downplayed the role he had played in the Jägala camp in Estonia, describing his duties as akin to being “the warden of Stony Mountain”, in Drache’s words.
As Telpner noted in his story, Drache went on to write about Laak, but without revealing his true name. Drache said to me that he found the notion that a Mossad agent tracking Laak down and forcing him to commit suicide highly implausible.
But, I suggested to him, the same information that had been given to the Free Press, presumably by Russian authorities, might also have been given to the Israelis.
Drache did concede that point. He went on to say that immediately after he wrote his story about Laak, which was in late August, 1960, he recalled, he drove to Boston to resume his studies at Brandeis. On the way he happened to pick up a copy of the New York Times, which published a major story about the suicide of Alexander Laak but, as was the case with the Free Press story about the suicide, the NY Times story did not reveal his true name.
Drache also mentioned his personal connection to Alexander Laak – through Laak’s son. As Gene Telpner had written, they had both attended Gordon Bell High School, were classmates in fact and even played on the high school football team together. It was the fact that he knew Laak’s son that led his assignment editor at the Free Press to ask Drache to go to Laak’s house to interview him.
When the book “Forged in Fury” was published in 1970, Drache says he was shocked at the allegations made in that book about Laak.
Drache told me, “We wrote a couple of stories which received page one play, but did not give his (Laak’s) name because of libel laws.”
But when Drache read “Forged in Fury”, he was made aware of the full details surrounding Alexander Laak’s alleged background as a Nazi war criminal for the first time. He wrote to the Free Press to tell them about the book’s revelations, but says he never got a response from the newspaper.
Laak was never publicly identified in Winnipeg while he was alive. It is believed that there had been accusations from some sources, but he protested his innocence.
Arthur Drache explained, “Only his ‘suicide’ allowed fuller disclosures and until I read ‘Forged in Fury’ I was quite at a loss to explain his actions.”
One final footnote to this story: In attempting to find out more about Alexander Laak, I came across this information on a white supremacist website:
Alexander Laak , former commandant of the Jägala camp in Estonia where a large number of Jews were supposedly massacred, is alleged to have committed suicide by hanging in his garage in Winnipeg , Canada. A number of Laak’s subordinates had at the time been given harsh sentences at a Soviet show trial. According to an article in Der Tagespiegel September 8, 1960, Laak had declared the Soviet allegations against him to be “99% lies and Communist propaganda.” In Michael Elkin’s book Forged in Fury (1971) it is claimed that a Jewish “avenger” named Arnie Berg travelled to Winnipeg to kill Laak, and that Laak hanged himself under Berg’s supervision in order to not have his wife shot by Berg.
This entire story was brought to mind again when I started to watch a ridiculous TV show called “Hunters” which, although it has a stellar cast, is really nothing more than a comic book fantasy about Jewish avengers pursuing Nazis in America. Still, the story surrounding Alexander Laak’s suicide could make an interesting movie. Maybe Jonas Chernick would be interested?
Features
What Attachment Styles Can Reveal About Dating Habits
How many evenings with a stranger does it take before anything reliable is known about them? Most people answer with a number and then ignore their own answer. What actually gets measured across those evenings is the pattern each person carries into every new pairing, and that pattern has been studied under one name since 1987.
Attachment research began with infants and moved into adult romance almost by accident. It now supplies the best available vocabulary for a question most people ask eventually, which is why their dating life keeps taking the same shape.
A Newspaper Quiz in 1987
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver tested a hunch in 1987 by publishing a quiz in the Rocky Mountain News asking readers about their romantic history. They received 620 replies. Roughly 56% of respondents described themselves in secure terms, about 25% in avoidant terms and around 19% in anxious terms.
Those proportions were close to what Mary Ainsworth had recorded in infants decades earlier. A distribution found in toddlers separated from a parent for 3 minutes in a laboratory had turned up again in adults describing love affairs, and that correspondence is what made the field take notice.
The method had obvious weaknesses. Newspaper readers who answer a quiz about their love lives are not a random sample, and every answer was self-reported by people describing their own behavior in the most favorable terms available. Later work with better samples moved the numbers around without dislodging the structure, and the structure is what has lasted.
Two Axes and Four Positions
Two questions turned out to organize the whole field. Does a person hold a positive or negative view of themselves, and do they hold a positive or negative view of other people? Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz built their 1991 model on exactly that pair.
Crossing those axes produces 4 positions. Secure covers positive views of both. Preoccupied means a negative view of self with a positive view of others, which produces someone who wants closeness and doubts they deserve it. Dismissing means the reverse, a positive self-view paired with low expectations of anyone else. Fearful covers negative views on both axes, which produces wanting closeness and distrusting it at the same time.
Two axes beat a list of 3 types, because the axes explain why 2 people who both avoid intimacy can look nothing alike in practice.
Pacing and the First Month
There is no fixed amount of dates that settles the question of compatibility, and attachment position changes how quickly a person believes they have settled it. Secure people tend to form an assessment gradually and revise it when new information arrives.
Preoccupied people often decide fast and commit to the decision before it is warranted. Dismissing people frequently take longer and still leave with less, since their default is to withhold the information that would let anyone assess them back.
Separating the decision from the feeling by a fixed interval helps the first group. Deciding after a set number of meetings rather than after a strong evening will not make the assessment more accurate. It removes the largest single source of error, which is a conclusion reached inside the honeymoon phase while everything still looks promising.
Hyperactivation and Deactivation
The mechanism underneath all of this has 2 modes. Anxious patterns run on hyperactivation, which means turning up the volume on distress to draw a partner closer. Avoidant patterns run on deactivation, which means suppressing the signal entirely to keep distance manageable.
In early dating this shows up in small behaviors. Hyperactivation shows up as checking your phone every few minutes after an unanswered message, and as the escalation of a minor scheduling conflict into something larger. Researchers call the wider category protest behavior, and it covers everything from pointed silence to deliberately provoking a reaction. Deactivation produces the pleasant evening that goes nowhere and the topic changed each time a real question arrives.
Both patterns are attempts to manage the same discomfort, pointed in opposite directions. The deactivating version accounts for most of what people mean when they call someone emotionally unavailable.
The Anxious-Avoidant Loop
The most documented pairing in the literature puts a hyperactivating person with a deactivating one. Fearful-avoidant attachment complicates the picture further, since one person can run both strategies in sequence and produce the same loop without a partner’s help. Each strategy strengthens the other. Pursuit triggers withdrawal, withdrawal triggers more pursuit, and the loop holds steady for years because neither person is doing anything the other did not provoke.
The reason this pairing is so common is easy to miss. To someone whose nervous system learned early to associate intensity with love, a secure partner can feel flat. The anxious-avoidant cycle produces intensity on demand.
Positions Move
Attachment position is a tendency, and tendencies move. Positions change across the lifespan with relationships, therapy and circumstance, and a single difficult partner can push someone temporarily toward a pattern that is not their baseline.
That matters for how any of this gets applied. A person behaving in a preoccupied way with one partner may be entirely secure with the next, so the category describes the current pairing as much as the individual in it.
It also rules out the most common misuse of the framework, which is deciding early that a new person is avoidant and treating every subsequent behavior as confirmation. Two quiet weeks can mean an avoidant pattern, a demanding job, a sick parent or ordinary early caution, and the categories offer no way to tell those apart from the outside.
Reading the Categories Correctly
There is one more thing the framework cannot do, and it is the thing people most want from it. Nothing in attachment theory tells anyone which partner to choose. It describes how a person is likely to behave once the choosing is over and the uncertainty starts, which is a different and much smaller claim than the one made by most of the writing built on top of it.
An attachment style is a description of a habit. It names what someone tends to do when closeness is on offer and they are uncertain about it, and nothing in the framework predicts what any specific person will do on any specific evening.
Used that way the idea is genuinely worth having. A person who knows their own pattern can catch it while it is running, and a pattern caught mid-run is the only kind that can be interrupted. Noticing that you commit early and regret it a month later teaches you more than any number of verdicts about the people you committed to.
Uncategorized
Four Seats or No Seats? Why Israel’s Final Polls Disagree Over Amcha Yisrael
Conflicting projections for Ofer Winter’s party illustrate the uncertainty of measuring public support near an electoral threshold.
A Channel 12 poll gives Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael four parliamentary seats.
An i24NEWS survey reaches the same seat total.
Other final polls find that the party does not qualify for representation.
How can surveys conducted close to the same election produce such different results?
The answer lies partly in the difference between measuring a vote share and converting it into parliamentary seats.
A Statistical Boundary
Israel’s electoral threshold is 3.25 percent.
For a party receiving substantially more than that percentage, modest sampling fluctuations may change its expected number of seats without calling its parliamentary presence into question.
For a party whose support lies near 3.25 percent, the same type of fluctuation may change its projected representation from several seats to zero.
This does not necessarily mean the polls are measuring completely different political realities.
They may be producing estimates close to the same threshold but on opposite sides of it.
Sample Size Is Only One Factor
The i24NEWS survey conducted on October 22 included 5,124 adult respondents and reported a sampling error of plus or minus 1.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
That is a substantial sample by conventional political polling standards.
But a larger sample does not eliminate every source of uncertainty.
Different pollsters may employ different recruitment methods, weighting systems and procedures for estimating turnout.
They may also differ in how they handle respondents who are undecided or reluctant to state their preferences.
These choices can matter particularly for smaller parties.
The Problem of Turnout
Opinion polls generally estimate voting preferences before actual voting takes place.
Election results reflect the ballots cast by people who participate.
Differences between intended and actual turnout can affect parties in different ways.
Analysts must therefore consider not only how many respondents express support for a party, but also whether the poll’s turnout model accurately reflects the eventual electorate.
Without transparent, comparable information about the methods used by each polling organization, it is difficult to identify which methodological difference is responsible for a particular disagreement.
Reading the Final Surveys
The appropriate interpretation of Amcha Yisrael’s polling is neither that its parliamentary representation is guaranteed nor that exclusion is certain.
The available surveys demonstrate uncertainty around a legally decisive boundary.
The four-seat projections reported by Channel 12 and i24NEWS are meaningful observations.
So are the below-threshold findings published by Channel 13, Maariv and Zman Yisrael.
Each survey is a measurement of electoral intentions under a particular methodology, not a count of actual votes.
For readers following Israel’s election, this makes Amcha Yisrael an instructive case study in how polling uncertainty interacts with electoral law.
The final result will provide the definitive seat allocation. The polls explain why the outcome was difficult to measure in advance.
Features
What Constitutes Genocide, and is Israel Guilty?
By HENRY SREBRNIK Genocide is a grave and exceptional violation of international law, defined and prohibited by the Genocide Convention of 1948. But maybe Raphael Lemkin did us no favour in coining the word during the Holocaust. It is now used by antisemites against Israel.
Raphael Lemkin was a Polish-Jewish jurist who escaped from Europe when the Nazis occupied Poland. He moved to Washington, DC, in the summer of 1942, and went on to document Nazi atrocities in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. In this text, he introduced the word “genocide,” the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, ethnicity or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).
But it’s not that cut and dried. Even before the antisemites accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, as a way of ridding themselves of any residual guilt about the destruction of European Jewry, the word had become little more than a term used by states and “human rights” groups who for one reason or another want to punish their adversaries.
Most of the time they really are talking about “ethnic cleansing,” pogroms, massacres and war crimes. By such criteria, every participant in World War II committed “genocide.” The mass killings of civilians in Hiroshima and Dresden in 1945 would today qualify. But these were acts against even far worse perpetrators of what we now call genocide, designed to speedily end the war.
What about the American war in Vietnam, and of course the almost numberless conflicts across Africa? The wars that dismembered Yugoslavia involved terrible massacres, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, but did they really meet the criterion for genocide? The numbers killed needn’t be huge. About 8,000 Bosniak Muslims were murdered in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb militias in 1995 during the Bosnian war. In the Western Hemisphere it would — and lately does — refer to the cultural and also physical extinction of pre-contact peoples from the Arctic down to Patagonia.
Are ideological attempts to kill groups of identifiable people within a state — the Holodomor in Ukraine, but also elsewhere in Stalin’s USSR — genocide? What about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Should we call this an “auto-genocide,” since it was perpetrated by the nation’s own mad Maoist regime? Was China’s Cultural Revolution a genocide? Millions probably died. Rwanda is an interesting case — obviously a mass murder by one class-cum-ethnic group against another, a giant pogrom involving intertwined peoples, but where the victims have now turned the tables.
Actually, there have been very few ideologically intentional attempts to destroy a powerless and helpless people, in whole or in part. Only a few qualify by that definition, the Holocaust being an obvious one, as well as the Turkish mass murders of Armenians in World War I. The allegations that Israel committed this crime do not meet the established definition and standards of genocide, are unsupported by established facts, nor do they stand up to common sense scrutiny.
A finding of genocide requires evidence of acts that are intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Israel has neither intended to, nor destroyed, Palestinians as a group in Gaza. Israel’s accusers allege genocide mostly because of the supposed number of civilians killed in Gaza. Such claims are rife with flaws. Genocide is not a quantitative crime; there is no specific number of civilian casualties that constitutes genocide.
Israel set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians. What kind of genocide is it when the population of Gaza is larger today than it was three years ago? And how could it be that Israel is trying to kill innocents when the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties is lower than that of other urban wars fought in even less-difficult conditions?
Dave Rich, an Associate Research Fellow at the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism, writes extensively about the intersection of anti-Israel activism, far-left politics, and modern antisemitism. He observes that people respond to the genocide charge through facts and data: Israel’s supporters take the charge of genocide on its face, as an evidence-based allegation of a crime, and try to construct the case for the defence. But there is no defence, because the charge is not made on that basis, or for that purpose, he states.
The term “genocide,” he notes in “From Be’eri to Bondi: Global Antisemitism After October 7, published in Fathom, October 2026, has shed its legal meaning and become a political label, whose antithesis is “resistance.” These two terms represent two states of being: in a colonial setting, either you are engaging in genocide or you are resisting it. There is no middle ground. “Israel is condemned as genocidal, not by observation, but through logical deduction: Israel is colonial, therefore by definition it is genocidal. It cannot be otherwise. And Gaza represents resistance against the entire Western colonial and capitalist power structure.”
Maia Zelkha, editor-in-chief of Yad Mizrah, a Sephardi and Mizrahi cultural magazine, also contends that the left employs the word “genocide” as an ideological weapon. “Before Israel had even launched its ground invasion of Gaza, and before there was any evidentiary record of Israel’s military campaign,” she writes, in her article “Genocide and Its Jurors,” in Quillette, Sept. 24, 2026, many leftist groups “were already describing Israel’s response as genocide.”
On Oct. 8, just a day after Hamas’s massacre and kidnappings, thousands of demonstrators gathered in New York’s Times Square in an “All Out for Palestine” rally to support “Palestinian resistance.” Within days, other organizations were issuing statements describing Israel’s unfolding military response as genocide, situated within a pre-existing theory of Israel as a colonial project that had produced genocidal dehumanisation. Prominent academics, human-rights organisations, activists, journalists, and public intellectuals described Israel’s conduct as genocidal.
Although the conviction that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is not new, it has garnered ever more strength since the beginning of this war. In March 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, published a report alleging that the Israeli war in Gaza constituted a genocide. In December of the same year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did the same. Then in July 2025 came both Physicians for Human Rights and B’Tselem, followed almost immediately by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. A resolution from the latter organization requires a two-thirds vote of its members, academics in the field of genocide studies, to pass. One would be hard-pressed to find a more reputable source for the libel.
On Sept. 16, 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza; other prominent left-wing organisations and scholars have reached the same conclusion. And finally, on Oct. 9, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to South African judge Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, who led the 2025 UN commission that found Israel guilty of genocide against the Palestinians while completely ignoring many of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including, of course, Hamas. Pillay’s commission found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes. Yet it accused Israel of genocide. This is a staggering moral inversion. And now the award of the Nobel; this appears to be the greatest possible legitimization of the now-established consensus about Israel’s war in Gaza. The icing on the cake!
But remember this: When a jihadist terrorist organization like Hamas applauds a Nobel Peace Prize, the moral judgment of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should rightly be called into question.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
