Talk:Timeline of antisemitism

Is this an attempt to write down ALL of the events? "two synagogues were vandalized".. this is a very common phenomenon. 80.178.61.11 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article begs the question why are the Jews persecuted everywhere they go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambori (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statue protest

This seems relevant to the article so it should not be removed. Offliner (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant, it's a disruptive coat some editors have began to hang here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why. It is very similar to other items in the list. Offliner (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about acts of anti-semitism, not about news reports of misguided non-factual accusations of anti-semitic behaviou. Alfons Rebane was never a volunteer in the Waffen SS (having been drafted in April 1944 from the Wehrmacht which he joined in 1941), nor was he "a Nazi executioner that was responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Jews". This is just hyperbole. The only people he killed were armed Red Army soldiers. It is un-encyclopedic to insert non-factual data, even if it was reported in a primary source like a newspaper. --Martintg (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules in this respect are "verifiability, not truth." Perhaps you do not consider Alfons Rebane responsible for the deaths of thousands of Russian people and Jews–but the Jewish community's organizations certainly do, and if newspaper reports and notable community members considered the erection of a statue to Rebans an act of antisemitism, or something considerably fuelling it, it should be described here as a relevant event vis-a-vis what this timeline attempts to do. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

All this primary source does is to verify that Russia's chief rabbi Berl Lazar and Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress, both known for their close ties with Putin, have made some accusations. There are plenty of secondary sources which verify that there is no substance to these accusations, thus there is no consensus that erecting a memorial to Rebane constitutes an act of antisemitism. Wikipedia is not a battleground or soapbox for Russian government inspired propaganda. --Martintg (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is substance to Rabbi Lazar's and Mr. Satanovsky's claims that has appeared in non-Russian Jewish organizations–for instance, his funeral was protested by American Jewish organizations 1, and the Estonian government has been provided with evidence of crimes against humanity committed by Rebane and others from the Los Angeles, United States - based Simon Wiesenthal Center. 2. (To date, none of the Estonians accused of war crimes have been turned over for prosecution by the Estonian government - the last one occured in Soviet Estonia.) In this Israeli article, Eliahu Salpeter is making another condemnation of commemmorating Nazi-allied officers as acts of antisemitism: 3. Estonia's commemmorations of Rebane in particular has also been discussed by European government commissions, such as in this excerpt from the working papers of the Parliamentarians: 4. No words minced in instances like that.

The English headline I am giving you here, "Estonia accused of antisemitism", appeared in The Independent, a newspaper of the United Kingdom. This is a notable event.

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale for removing incidents related to the Baltic countries. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions that are not in the sources, I'll list the issues according to your numbering of the sources:

1. This source explicitly states at the beginning of the paragraph "According to the leader of the local Jewish Community there is no state anti-Semitism in Estonia". In the same paragraph it goes on to mention the American Jewish Congress protesting the re-burial of Rebane with state honours and also mentions the Russian Jewish Congress accusing the Estonian authorities of "pro-Nazi sympathies", but there is no claim that the act of reburial was an act of anti-semitism.
2. This is just a link to a mirror of some old version of Wikipedia content, and therefore is disqualified as not reliable, and seems to have no relation to the context.
3. The Israeli article makes no mention of Rebane let alone his re-burial was an anti-semitic event.
4. And finally the Parliamentary Assembly working paper is a collection of submissions by vested interests, and the part that mentions Rebane was an opinion written by Mikhail Margelov pushing the Kremlin line, not the viewpoint of the Parliamentary Assembly.

--Martintg (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Martintg, you are clearly misreading all the documents provided here to your own advantage–which is to wipe Estonian situation of any unpleasant realities contained therein. In the first place, every link I have provided here deals with the commemmoration of Estonia's SS veterans and their alleged status as collaborators in the Nazi Holocaust. In the second place, your questioning of Mr. Lazar (Russia's apolitical and Italian-born Orthodox Jewish Chabad Lubavich Chief Rabbi's interpretation of the situation is misplaced here: we include all reputable sources, regardless of their country of origin. (Ie, there is no hard-and-fast rule on Wikipedia excluding the opinion of Jewish organizations which so happen to be based in Russia.) In regard to Estonia's Jewish representative, Ms. Cilja Laud, is officially registered as representing Estonia's Jewish community as a "non-governmental organization" in Estonia–so if there are any charges of impartiality with regard to this antisemitic incident to be addressed, they're right here. (Do you have any claims from Ms. Laud with regard to this event particularly? Because you are free, you know, to include them over here.) Since you have decided to include an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier's opinion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states, it would be a logical extrapolation that you would not hesitate to include the opinion of an Italian Orthodox Rabbi representing the largest Jewish community on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Moreover, nowhere did anyone write that Mr. Rebane was guilty or innocent–Offliner and I simply reiterated the accusation, put into print in the British press, that SSman Alfons Rebane was accused of killing thousands of Jews and Russian citizens. In regard to your last "point", the European Parliamentary Group's statement–authored by Mikhail Margelov, as you correctly note–was adopted by the European group. (See Page 13 of the book reference provided.) I have no intention of Wikilawyering with you over this, but if you find any of the simple statements contained herein inaccurate, please don't hold yourself back. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an additional source which treats the commemoration of Alfons Rebane as an act in an antisemitic context: The Israeli Stephen Roth Institute's Antisemitism Worldwide 5. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Erecting a monument to a dead person (even if someone does not like that person) can not be anti-semitic, it can not be anti-Russiian, and it can be anti anything.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "Monuments erected to Adolf Hitler cannot be antisemitism." Thanks for that. (That is, at least, the logical translation of what you are arguing here.) PasswordUsername (talk)

Of course that would not be antisemitism. That would be only a monument to Adolf Hitler. Antisemitism is an action or a propaganda against Jews as an ethnic group. Erection of a monument is not against anyone. This is "pro" action.Biophys (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. The sources given disagree with assessments like yourds. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument you cite belongs to Reductio ad Hitlerum.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument I'm citing belongs to the statements adopted by the Council of Europe. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The document you cited is just a working paper and bit about Rebane is part of Mikhail Margelov's submission, I already mentioned this. The only thing adopted on page 13 was the agenda of the working group. Read the first line of this article: "This timeline of antisemitism chronicles the facts of antisemitism". There is no consensus that Rebane's reburial is a fact of antisemitism. All you have offered is an accusation of antisemitism. Another of your own sources state in the paragraph about the reburial of Rebane: "According to the leader of the local Jewish Community there is no state anti-Semitism in Estonia". All these accusations are originally sourced from Russia. We know there is intense rivalry between Berl Lazar and Yevgeny Satanovsky and their attempts to gain the favour of Putin, where some foreign observers have detected whiffs of antisemitism in the prosecution of Khodorkovsky and the crack down on other Jewish oligarchs, these two Russian Jewish leaders say this is a step forward in the battle against anti-Jewish bigotry!! --Martintg (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The statement made by Mikhail Margelov is the statement adopted (and published) by the working group: read the good print on page 13, which reads–quite clearly–"Adopted on 21 and 22 May 2007, Doc. 11292". If there have been sources questioning Rabbi Lazar's judgment in protesting the commemoration of a Waffen-SS Officer accused of mass murder as an act tantamount to serious fuelling of anti-Semitism, you're welcome to cite theme here–by all means, let us discuss. Other judgments would be nothing other than pure speculation (read WP:OR) on your part–very convenient in light of your strong track record of defending Estonia against accusations on practically every account. If you believe that the Chief Rabbi of Russia is an unreliable source, file a report at the WP:RS noticeboard. (I do not, however, think that you are going to get very far.) Moreover, I have already demonstrated that Ms. Laud (the leader of the Jewish community in my source) is officially registered with the Estonian government as the leader of the Jewish community as an NGO–as though the Jews of Estonia were some kind of think-tank sanctioned by the Estonian government. You know as well as I that hers was no reference to the widely detested Rebane memorial. I see as well that you have not given the date for Ms. Laud's comments - if I am not mistaken, I have seen the remarks quoted in statements from as early as 2001. The incident in question occured years afterward. What other interesting objections, by any chance, have you got here to point out? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia has been accused of fuelling anti-Semitism and glorifying Nazism after a memorial was erected there to a colonel in the Waffen SS who is alleged to have the blood of thousands of people on his hands.[1]

This simply belongs here. No valid reason has been given for its removal. Please do not censor Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The same source also states that Rebane was never convicted of war crimes, and the CoE in 2007 has defined when erecting a monument constitutes anti-Semitism or not. PasswordUsername's point about the Estonia Jewish community organisation is registered as a NGO proves what? That Ms. Laud's opinion is more unreliable than Mr. Lazar's? Please. As for the CoE, it is just a working paper containing Mikhail Margelov's viewpoint. The final text adopted by the CoE states: "12.11. not endorse the construction of monuments and the holding of ceremonies celebrating those guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity during the Second World War". Rebane was never found guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity during the Second World War, therefore construction of a monument to him does not qualify as antisemitism. Rebane was held in detention by Allied forces until 1947 and his activities thoroughly investigated, and he lived openly in the UK and Germany until his death in 1975, not hiding in some rat hole in South America. In all that time he as never charged with genocide or crimes against humanity, even the Soviets did not bother charging him and trying him in absentia during the Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia back in 1961, so the claim he is guilty of these crimes is nonsensical. --Martintg (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My point about Ms. Laud's denials of antisemitism in Estonia is that she is beholden to the Estonian government as an officially approved NGO president–something to take into consideration when Efraim Zuroff, representing the Israeli-based Nazi-hunting section of the American-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, says that Estonia's Jewish community is intimidated about protesting against the construction of SS war memorials for fear of provoking greater antisemitism. (See this Ukrainian press interview.) If Ms. Laud has commented that the erection of the Rebane war statue wasn't an act with antisemitic overtones, you are welcome to include it here. (For that matter, do not hesitate to add the Estonain government's point of view on this.) You have still not given the date of the "no state antisemitism in Estonia" remarks–and I very much suspect that both of us know why. Rabbi Berl Lazar, whether you like it or not, still represents one of the largest Jewish communities in the world–one that has been augmented by former Estonian Jews coming in after Estonia's passage of citizenship laws described by Jewish writers like Zvi Gitelman and Robert Wistrich as conforming to the ethnic model of nationhood. This isn't a dispute about Rabane's war record–it's a dispute about the act of placing a memorial to said SSman as an act of antisemitism in Estonia. And major Jewish organizations have stated their view. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a very odd idea about what NGOs are. As Wikipedia's own article on NGOs states: Non-governmental organization (NGO) is a term that has become widely accepted for referring to a legally constituted, non-governmental organization created by natural or legal persons with no participation or representation of any government. Mr. Lazar is also Putin's appointee as head Rabbi in Russia, so it can be argued that he is beholden to the Russian government. The only major Jewish organization to claim Rebane's memorial is an act of antisemitism happens to be located in Russia. Efraim Zuroff is Efraim Zuroff, but we are not talking about SS war memorials, but a memorial to an individual that for most of WW2 served in the Wermacht and was drafted into the Waffen SS in April 1944 (and the Nuremburg trials explicitly exempted those who were drafted into the Waffen SS in its judgement), and who devoted his entire life to the restoration of the independent Estonian republic that had some of the most liberal laws in regard to its Jewish citizenry in Europe during the 20s and 30s, and which the current Estonian state is the legal continuation of. It must be noted that all the freedoms that Estonia's Jewish citizenry enjoyed in independent Estonia ended with the Soviet occupation, and was restored with restoration of independent Estonia. The bottom line is that CoE has defined what constitutes a fact of antisemitism in regard to the erection of monuments, and this article is not called Timeline of accusations of antisemitism. --Martintg (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NGOs are NGOs, and you apparently don't seem to focus on the fact that Laud is the officially designated representative of the NGO who gets an audience from the Estonian government.

I don't see Nuremberg making distinctions between those drafted into the SS and those volunteering for it. As for the rest of your claims here, I'd like to point your attention to the fact, Estonia didn't have as many freedoms as you'd like to think–Konstantin Pats ruled an authoritarian dictatorship, and that, fortunate as it was, was only after the majority had declared its support for the fascistic Vaps Movement: "little Estonia has the dubious distinction of having given her fascists the majority of the vote in a free election" -- from Politics, Economics and Power by Nathaniel Stone Preston, Page 242. (And Pats still retained a number of fascists in his government.) Not that this has much to do with the argument at all. You have completely ignored the fear of protesting these monuments testified to by Efraim Zuroff (whose own arrival in the country, if you consult a source like Google, was met by an unprecedented anti-Semitic wave among the Estonian populace–93% of it aghast at the thought of commmemorating the Holocaust according to polls from several years back.)

"Estonia ended with the Soviet occupation, and was restored with restoration of independent Estonia. The bottom line is that CoE has defined what constitutes a fact of antisemitism in regard to the erection of monuments..."–where are you getting this? The CoE doesn't anywhere say it has defined what constitutes anti-Semitism as far as putting up the various monuments. See WP:OR. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Nuremberg making distinctions between those drafted into the SS and those volunteering for it.

Your failures too see things are not surprising, but anyway in last paragraph. Although considering you liberal usage of the term, Jewish Virtual Library is probably just another radical fascist organization for you.--Staberinde (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the source states "the entire organisation was declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremberg Trials, except conscripts, who were exempted from that judgement due to being forcibly mobilised." We're not talking about Nuremberg absolving SS conscripted officers of guilt–the source talks about the designation of the entire military body as a criminal organization. It's a good thing to read things a bit less tendentiously sometimes. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The memorial is to the individual, Rebane, not the organisation he was drafted into for twelve months. Here is an image of it here, slightly larger than a regular tomb stone, but nothing on it that appears antisemitic. The symbol with the "E" within the bent arm (forming a letter "V") holding the sword is an old Estonian War of Independence symbol meaning "Eesti Vabariik". --Martintg (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Jewish organizations the statue incident was anti-Semitism. No amount of explanation or attempts to muddy the waters will change that. Verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Jewish organizations based in Russia, however the local Estonian Jewish organization disagrees, according to one of the sources provided by PassportUsername. But PassportUsername tells us to discount that view because of his strange OR theory that the local Jewish organization is registered as an NGO and thus according to him/her NGOs are beholden to the government. Were is the verification for this OR theory? --Martintg (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I recall when Bäckamn wanted SWC to give him a blessing. So, Bäkcanm worked out a weird story with clear antisemitic motiffs in it but without much basis in reality, phoned SWC, and read his story, to a result of SWC saying "How horrible! We condemn this!". According to sources, Bäcmkan was kind of blacklisted in SWC for this stunt, once the Centre realised what had happened.

Maybe something similar is behind Mr. Lazar's misunderstanding. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of the largest Jewish organizations considered the act anti-Semitic. Please provide a source where the anti-Semitism alleged by Rabbi Berl Lazar and the Russian Jewish Congress were denied by Ms. Laud. Please do not bring in vague statements in general, especially those made years before the incident in question. The incident was judged as anti-Semitic by top organizations within the Jewish community, and so far that's that. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

!votes

We've been discussing it for a while; it's time for some closure. Let's take votes.

I propose we remove this tombstone from this article, under WP:COAT. This article is meant to give the reader a detailed understanding of landmark cases in antisemitism's history, and as this tombstone has nothing to do with antisemitism, it's irrelevant. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And let all your friends drop in to vote in your favour? I don't agree with this approach. An RFC to gather opinions from uninvolved editors would be a more constructive solution. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)