I'd like to weigh in as a member of this community and person with a strong and proud Jewish heritage.
At best, you made an overzealous statement that was unintentionally vague and/or exaggerated. You were responded to, quickly and strongly it seems, and could have apologized immediately. Then explained that the statement was vague and/or exaggerated and wrong, and apologized again. But it seems that instead, you are re-explaining what you said at first, and aren't changing your position. And when told that your belief in what actually happened is completely absurd (there is opinion and there is fact), you say that we can "believe what we want" as if there is anything resembling a choice about anything related to not sees, let alone historical fact.
I do not think you're antisemitic anymore than a person who wants a rapist to be released from prison is a misogynist. One position doesn't necessarily mean the extrapolation is accurate. The problem still exists in both cases, though. That problem is you have taken an indefensible stance and you're digging in.
The case you cited is unbelievably tragic. That single case does not, nor should it ever, mean that all should be forgotten and those guilty should be ignored, however. (I think Mark did a very good job of explaining this.) To return to my rapist analogy, a person accused and charged with terrible act who turns out to be innocent suffered a tragedy and it is unquestionably regrettable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go after rapists.
I also think that your original statement is really uneven. There isn't anything legally wrong with making a statement, at least not in the US. Making not see wine isn't illegal and I believe it should be protected, even though I find it viscerally repugnant. The holocaust and the actions therein are unequivocally illegal and punishable, not to mention unimaginable in their pain and lasting effects.* You saying "going after current day people making statements is a better use of time/resources than going after criminals whose crimes were committed 70 years ago" (paraphrasing) is absurd. One is punishable and one is not. One involved a crime against 10+ million people. One is a freedom of speech issue.
I could go on but I think that my knowledge (note: not belief) about history was explained by Mark and mother, even if he did get too personal, pretty much reflects my feelings, sans his personal attacks which I qualified for myself above. I also would like you to know that I'm not offended -- I've posted several times in this thread that I rarely, if ever, get offended -- but I am disappointed in both the lack of historical understanding that permeates this world and that such misunderstanding has joined us here.
*As an aside, I think that these effects and the pain (less than 100 years ago!) are largely underplayed in our society and allowed to be ignored and forgotten far too easily.
"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke
"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen