Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

This Israeli law was famously used to prosecute Adolf Eichmann and Ivan Demjanjuk, and less famously to prosecute around 40 Holocaust survivors accused of collaboration. Since war crimes were among those penalized by the law, it is within the project scope. I am thinking about a possible FAC in future so any comments on potential improvements are most encouraged. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned/


 * Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

 * "It was motivated by anger of survivors" → 'by the anger of survivors'.
 * Done
 * "and the desire to". Optional: "the" → 'a'.
 * Done
 * "The law punishes crimes against humanity". A law doesn't punish, courts do.
 * Fixed
 * "of which two-thirds were convicted". "which" → 'whom'.
 * done
 * "Three non-Jews were also prosecuted under the law". Optional: delete "also".
 * Done
 * "upheld by both Israeli and United States courts." Should United States have an apostraphe?
 * No, this is used as an adjective, the same way as US court, US law.
 * "executing the orders of Nazi's." Why the apostraphe?
 * Reworded
 * "the drafters of the law". As this is its first mention in the main article, I think that the full title is merited.
 * Done
 * "Knowledge of the Holocaust and understanding of what Jews faced at the time, in Israeli society, in general, was limited at the time the law was passed." "at the time ... at the time".
 * Reworded
 * "Some Knesset members including Hanan Rubin and Eri Jabotinsky believed that". Should there be a pair of commas in there?
 * Linked
 * Link exculpation.
 * Linked
 * "Several provisions in the law are considered "exceptional"." By whom? In line I mean.
 * Well, literally all authors who comment on this aspect emphasize how exceptional these provisions are. For example, there are no other Israeli laws that apply exclusively outside the country or mandate death sentences.
 * "It applies not only to past events (ex post facto law) but those that occurred before the creation of Israel". As it stands, this doesn't work, events "those that occurred before the creation of Israel" were also "past events".
 * Rephrased
 * "The law applies extraterritorially to crimes committed exclusively outside of Israel". Er, how else might it apply extraterritoriality?
 * It is much more usual for laws with exterratorial application to also apply to crimes committed inside the country as well (E.g. Germany's law criminalizing genocide under universal jurisdiction applies both to genocide committed in Germany as well as other countries).
 * AH. Fair point.


 * "The rules of evidence are relaxed". 1. A little detail on this would be good. 2. Add a period to the end.
 * Done


 * "Yehezkel Enigster [he] / Jungster" Is this MoS compliant?
 * I don't know, I just thought it would be helpful to note radically different spellings of his last name.
 * "another paradigm shift". I don't recall mention of a first one.
 * The first being after the Enigster/Jungster verdict. Reworded.
 * "led to another paradigm shift in which defendants were viewed as" → 'led to another paradigm shift to one in which defendants were viewed as'.
 * Reworded
 * "If Barenblat was convicted it could lead to" → 'If Barenblat had been convicted it could have led to'.
 * Done
 * "inappropriate to judge those who". I am not sure about "judge": 'try', 'punish', 'hold to account'?
 * Reworded
 * "others added unverified information to their testimony". I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think that "unverified" says it.
 * If the source said "false" then I would, but in this case I worry that would be OR since what the source says is "In other cases, witnesses added unverified information to bolster testimonies that were truthful at their core."
 * On a first reading the "Adolf Eichmann" section seems to me to "go into unnecessary detail." A more summary style may be appropriate.
 * I tried to cover all the legal aspects, but not non-legal ones. A Wikipedia article on the Eichmann trial would spend much more space on the non-legal aspects, such as its effects on perceptions of the Holocaust. I'm open to trimming it if you have a good idea what seems to be UNDUE.
 * I am not going to let it stand in the way of a support at this level, but IMO everything between "charged with fifteen counts of violating the law." and "Convicted on all fifteen counts" needs to go. It is not appropriate in an article on a law to give so much detail on a single case, however famous.
 * Thanks for the suggestion, now split off into Eichmann trial. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "which confiscated property of deported Jews" → 'which confiscated the property of deported Jews'.
 * Done
 * "the court determined that this the purpose of such confiscation". Is "this" a typo?
 * Fixed
 * "he was found guilty for deportation of parts of the population of Lidice" → 'he was found guilty of the deportation of part of the population of Lidice'.
 * Done
 * "Attorney General Haim Cohn filed dozens of indictments under the law, but later changed his mind". This compares actions with attitudes. Maybe 'Attorney General Haim Cohn filed dozens of indictments under the law, but later said' or similar?
 * Done
 * Page range for Bazyler, Drumbl (2019) and Kremnitzer?
 * Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

HF
I'll try to take a look over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * " where a Jewish leadership (known as Judenrat) and Jewish Ghetto Police was appointed to execute Nazi orders." - Since there's two things "was" is referring to ("a Jewish leadership" and "Jewish Ghetto Polic"), should this be "were" not "was"
 * Done
 * "Knowledge of the Holocaust in Israeli society was limited at the time the law was passed" - It's a bit unclear what this is trying to say. Is this saying that knowledge of the full extent and horror of the Holocaust was limited?  It can also be read as saying that much of Israeli society was unaware that the Holocaust happened, which seems implausible.
 * Reworded
 * "On 27 March 1950, Minister of Justice Pinkhas Rosen introduced the renamed "Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law" to the Knesset" - By renamed, are you saying that the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law is a renamed and reworked version of the previous genocide law? Also, is the singular of Nazi intentional here?
 * Clarified ("introduced the bill to prosecute Nazi collaborators, now renamed "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law", to the Knesset...")
 * "no distinction between acts committed by an SS man and a Jewish prisoner" - SS needs glossed here.
 * Done
 * Do we know what the final vote total for and against the law in the Knesset was?
 * I tried to figure it out, but can't find it in any English language source. I've posted a query to a Hebrew-speaking Wikipedian to see if we can figure it out.
 * Update: It turns out that the vote wasn't recorded
 * "Servatius challenged the jurisdiction of Israeli courts over Eichmann's crimes" - who is Servatius?
 * Eichmann's defense lawyer, clarified.

Looks good to me beyond that, although I'm a non-expert on the subject. Hog Farm Talk 16:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC) - Supporting as non-expert. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (Hebrew: חוק לעשיית דין בנאצים ובעוזריהם, תש"י-1950‎) No Arabic name since Arabic is one of the official languages of the state?
 * I don't think that Arabic would make sense here since Arabs were not affected by the law.
 * Is it written only in Hebrew? If no then add Arabic if yes then nevermind
 * This one isn't addressed.
 * Sorry, must have missed it! The official website for the law is in Hebrew and doesn't give an Arabic name; not sure if it has an official Arabic title. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * prosecution of crimes against Jews and other persecuted people This is the only moment I see "other persecuted people" in the body it only uses "Jews"?
 * In "Provisions" section it is stated that most provisions of the law apply to all persecuted people not just Jews.
 * committed in Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe And how about its allies?
 * It does; clarified this point.
 * as well as a variety of lesser offenses It's also vague here what were those offences?
 * There's a long list detailed in "Provisions" section but I don't think they can all be listed in the lead.
 * brought petitions to Israeli police alleging Isn't it Israeli Police? If so link it as well.
 * Linked
 * Shouldn't "police" have a capital letter?
 * "Israeli police" isn't the proper name of the agency; I'm not sure if it had its present name in 1948. Similarly, French police and Russian police are not proper names, but it's correct to refer to them that way. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe but the official website of the Israel Police uses it with an upper case. The name is the same as back then. Well, that's what this PDF (p. 33) (written by the police itself) claims. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * was drafted in August 1949 by deputy justice minister Haim Wilkenfeld --> "was drafted in August 1949 by Deputy Justice Minister Haim Wilkenfeld"
 * Changed this as I realize that "deputy justice minister" wasn't his official title.
 * "destroying or desecrating Jewish religious or cultural assets and values" (aka cultural genocide) Add an "also know as" template here.
 * Added
 * Thanks for your review! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Enigster, the editor-in-chief of Yediot Aharonot I have the feeling an article before Yediot Aharonot is needed same with Davar.
 * I don't think so. As a native AmEnglish speaker, the only reason that I can think of where I would put an article in front of a foreign language publication was if it was something like "the newspaper Yediot Aharonot", but that would be duplicative of the section heading. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a non-native speaker I refuse to accept it since it's against my English feeling. I'm not chaniging my view but I don't mind if you use it even though I think it needs one even in American English.

That's anything couldn't find anything else. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some comments which should be addressed before it gets a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for missing your replies, now responded above. Thanks again for reviewing! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was on the verge of pinging CPA–5 to check they were happy with this but then noticed it looks like there may be an outstanding comment from 7 March above regarding the name of the Israeli police? Zawed (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed to "Israel Police" as requested. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

hey, just checking that this has your support? Zawed (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry didn't know the outstanding comment was addressed. Now don't have a reason to not support it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle
What a fascinating and tragic story. I took a class in international law several years ago, and we discussed the Nurembourg Trials and the "extraordinary rendition" of Eichmann. This one really got the gears turning in my head. My comments: -Indy beetle (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Was the domestic codification of the Genocide Convention by the "Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law" designed to lay a basis and make room for the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law", or was the codifying law passed on its own merits in the view of Israli justice officials and legislators? Similarly, if that wasn't the case, was the Nazi Collaborator Law seen as compensating for a deficiency in the Genocide Law? Zertal writes that the Nazi Law was "perceived as the 'natural' sequel" to the Genocide Law. I'm just curious if there's anything more to add here, not demanding that something necessarily be done when there isn't need for it.
 * I believe it was the former. Many countries passed laws at the same time to codify the Genocide Convention into their domestic criminal law. But I don't think there's anything more to add here.
 * In page 106 of Wenig's paper here, footnote 23, he notes that in comparison to the Nazi Law no one has ever been prosecuted in Israel under the Genocide Law, due to Israeli focus on WWII events and preference for using the Nazi Law there. This seems worthy of mention.
 * In my opinion, the reverse would be more surprising. The genocide law is prospective, so it can't be used retroactively. No genocides have occurred in Israel since 1948 and Israel has a low amount of immigration of non-Jews so it would be surprising if any perpetrators of post-1949 genocides ended up in the country to be prosecuted. The source is also from 1997 so ideally if we were going to include this factoid (I am not convinced of the relevance) there would be a more recent source to confirm that it is still the case.
 * Aside from the Ohio case of extradition, is it known if this act has had any discussion or implications in non-Israeli domestic or international law?
 * I'm currently trying to research this. Sorry for the delay, bear with me.
 * OK, the main thing I have found for this is that Eichmann trial was cited as a precedent during later genocide trials. However, this is an issue of case law related to the Genocide Convention and not the Israeli law specifically so I'm inclined to consider it out of scope for this article.


 * Supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * The sources themselves look OK.
 * Bazyler & Tuerkheimer looks to be a chapter in a book; shouldn't the format be as per the 2019 Drumbl source?
 * I believe they are the same format, both use cite book. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was shouldn't the names of the editor(s), if any, be recited? Zawed (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for misunderstanding. In fact, the book is coauthored by Bazyler and Tuerkheimer (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No publication locations given for any sources, but that may be your preference?
 * I consider it redundant, since we include ISBN numbers and/or DOI for all sources which are already unique identifiers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the provisions section: Many usual defenses are banned, including the necessity defense;[36][12] You may want to reorder the refs here. Ditto the first block quote in the "Judges and prosecutors" section.
 * Doing some spotchecks using Bazyler & Scheppach and Drumbl 2016 since they are retrievable online:
 * notes 4 and 5: OK
 * note 8: OK
 * note 17: OK, I almost thought the new name of the bill wasn't covered until I saw the footnote in the source.
 * note 30: OK
 * notes 61 and 62: OK
 * note 68: Demanjuk is actually identified on pg 229 so the cite range should be across pgs 229–230, not just pg 230
 * Done
 * note 77: Chief Judge Frank J. Battisti is not explicitly mentioned in the source.
 * Added ref confirming that Battisti was the one who decided the case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * note 79: OK. Also, the two instances of this cite could be consolidated to one since they follow each other over without any intervening cites.
 * True, but I prefer to always cite at the end of the sentence if it includes a direct quote. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source review! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, the least I can do given your own reviewing efforts. I have clarified one point above, then this should be good to go. Zawed (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , just checking you have seen my comment above? Zawed (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, looks all good. Zawed (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)