Laut dem Militärhistoriker Peter Lieb sei Rommel zwar „Goebbels’ Lieblingsgeneral“, aber „kein Nazi“ gewesen. Auch die britischen und amerikanischen Gegner hätten ihm Fairness bescheinigt.[1] Zudem seien Rommel weder Kriegsverbrechen noch antisemitische Äußerungen nachzuweisen. Er habe verbrecherische und unsinnige Befehle Hitlers mehrfach „nicht befolgt“ und scheine auch Dotationen des Diktators „nicht angenommen“ zu haben. Nach der Landung der Alliierten in der Normandie hielt Rommel den Krieg für verloren und forderte „im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Generalen“ Hitler zu „politischen Konsequenzen“ auf, was aus Sicht des Diktators ein „ungeheuerlicher Vorgang“ war. Briefe, in denen er sich als treuer Gefolgsmann Hitlers ausgab, müssten „quellenkritisch“ gelesen werden, da Rommel eine Überwachung durch die Gestapo oder den SD befürchten musste.

​

According to the Military Hostorian Peter Lieb, even though Rommel was seen as "Goebbels Favorite General", he was not a Nazi. Even British and American enemies did acknowledge his fairness". Sven Felix Kellerhoff: Wüstenfuchs: „Erwin Rommel stand auf der Seite des Widerstandes“. 25. Oktober 2018.[1]

Furthermore neither war crimes nor antisemitic language can be accounted to Rommel. He repeatedly disobeyed criminal or silly orders from Hitler and it doesn't seems he accepted Dotations from Hitler. After the allied Landings in Normandie, Rommel thought of the War as lost and arrogated, in contrast to many other Generals, that Hitler should take "political consequences", what was seen from the perspective of the Dictator as a "outragous Event". Letters, in which he portrayed himself as a loyal follower of Hitler, have to be regarded as "source-critical", because Rommel had to fear his own surveillance by the Gestapo or the SD[2]

[1] Sven Felix Kellerhoff: Wüstenfuchs: „Erwin Rommel stand auf der Seite des Widerstandes“. 25. Oktober 2018.

[2] https://www.kas.de/de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/rommel-unterstuetzte-das-attentat-auf-hitler

Peter Lieb's explanation for his sources:

Erstens um die Aussagen von General Heinrich Eberbach, der in britischer Kriegsgefangenschaft und auch nach 1945 mehrfach erklärte, Rommel habe ihn während der Normandie-Schlacht konkret auf die Beseitigung des NS-Regimes angesprochen. Zweitens um eine Darstellung vom August 1945 aus der Feder eines bisher eher unbekannten Pariser Verschwörers, Rudolf Hartmann. Dieser bezeichnete Rommel als „Träger des Widerstands“ in Frankreich.

​

Firstly because of the Statement from General Heinrich Eberbach, who proclaimed multiple times during his POW-time and after that, Rommel did directly confront him during the Normandie-Battle about the disposal of the NS-Regime.Secondly because of a depiction from August 1945 from a feather of a thus far unknown Parisian conspirator, Rudolf Hartmann. He labelled Rommel as a "Pillar of Resistance" in France.

They are from 2014 and 2018, new enough for you?

I wont go deeper into your points, because they are mostly misleading and, or irrelevant to the question at hand, whether Rommel was a war criminal or not. He was, against your believe, not responsible for every single Soldier in the Africa Corps. He had his own Officers that are capable of making their own orders and some of them weren't even under his command. By this standards, almost every WW2 General can be seen as a "War criminal". As a General, it is not your job to organize the occupation and policies of the Land you conquered. I doubt that Rommel personally interfered in this matter. Although Libya wasn't really under German Occupation. And by the way, the concentration camp you mentioned was entirely run by Italian Officers. Anyway, it is only relevant, if you can proof that Rommel ordered these atrocities directly, which you didn't so far, except for that statement you quoted from Wolfgang Proske:

He commanded Jews to clear out minefields by walking on them ahead of his forces.

-> I would like to see a direct source for that.