Abetting the Holocaust: Arthur Hays Sulzberger and the New York Times

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” He is author of the newly published book The Great Betrayal (Regnery 2014), which is a chronicle of the Democrats treachery in the war on terror before 9/11 to the death of Osama bin Laden.


sulzbergerAs the New York Times enables the anti-Jewish axis created by Islamic Nazis in the Middle East who are preparing a new Holocaust of the Jews, it is important to remember that this is nothing new and has happened before. Take ten minutes to view this talk, posted below, by Anna Blech: “Downplaying the Holocaust: Arthur Hays Sulzberger and the New York Times.”

Anna Blech won first prize at the New York City History Day competition for her research paper, “Downplaying the Holocaust: Arthur Hays Sulzberger and The New York Times.” For this paper, she also was awarded The Eleanor Light Prize from the Hunter College High School Social Studies Department and membership in the Society of Student Historians. Anna’s paper on anti-slavery sentiment in pre-Civil War children’s literature was published in The Concord Review. Anna was a finalist at the 2013 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, where she won third place in microbiology for her project, “Reinventing Antibiotics.” She has received national and regional Scholastic Writing awards, mostly for her one-act musical comedies, and she is an active member of the Hunter theater community.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Hass

    And not a thing has changed. The NYT steering wheel only has a sharp turn to the left .

    • iluvisrael

      One thing has changed – the amount of people who pay to read that rag continues to plummet – couldn’t happen to a nicer gang.

      • victoryman

        I lined my birdcage with the Times……my bird attacked me!

        • iluvisrael

          thought of lining my cat’s litter box, but that would be redundant

      • inachu

        But the amount of people who read the Washington Times increases. Why can’t the neocons just buy the Times from the Moonies?

    • defcon 4

      Yep, the NY Times can’t make right hand turns, or even U-turns. If you can’t get there by going left, you can’t get there at all, and it’s probably not worth getting to anyway.

  • truebearing

    A searing indictment of Sulzberger’s narcissism and utter lack of decency or compassion. The same goes for The New York Times, where truth always takes a back seat to institutional denial and ideological delusion.

    Well done, Anna.

  • Chuck Morse
  • joe

    What an amazing young lady. What an incredible mind and heart. Thanks to Mr. Horowitz for shining a light on her.

  • D Alday

    God will continue to bless you, Ms Blech, for Israel is the pupil (apple) of His Eye!
    I stand with those who stand for Israel!

  • Burkasrugly

    Christians and Jews must stand together. I never have understood the hatred against the Jews. It is awful. There is a lot of persecution of Christians around the world now, especially by Muslims. They are beginning to awaken the sleeping Christian giant, though. http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/horrific-muslim-attacks-waking-sleeping-christian-giant/

    • defcon 4

      Everyone non-muslim is threatened by islam. Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Jews, Christians, atheists (particularly in Bangladesh) — all are being murdered, persecuted, raped by muslimes now, in the 21st century, in the name of islam.

    • Myrtle Linder

      Christians and Jews are GOD’S people.The olive tree represents the Jewish people which have suffered so much not only because of their sin but millions of non-Jews who hated them because they were, called by GOD, HIS chosen race. We as Christians are not right to condemn or to take any part in persecution of them. Whether we agree with them or not, it is not our place to apply any sort of punishment, they belong to GOD, not imperfect humans, as we all stand. We stand with HIM or we stand with Satan, we cannot stand with both. WE obey HIM or we give in to Satan. Christians must bless and walk with, not curse HIS people

      Zechariah 12:10-12
      10. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon there in inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for HIM, as one mourneth for HIS ONLY SON, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for HIS firstborn.
      11.In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
      12. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart.

      Romans 11: 16-18, 21, 24, 26

      16. For the first fruit be holy the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
      17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
      18. Boast not against the branches. but if thou boast, you bearest not the root, but the root thee.

      22. Behold, therefore the goodness and severity of GOD: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in HIS goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

      24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

      HE will not abide workers who are lackadaisical, we must be sincere in our work or HE will do as He says in Revelation15-16
      15. I know thy works, that thou are neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cols or hot.
      16. So then because thou art neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

      You may say, This is all about that church, we need to remember, “We as Christians are the church

      • victoryman

        Do not forget God’s Words in Genesis 12:3. “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

  • Texas Patriot

    Unfortunately, the callous denial and rationalization of the fate of European Jews under the domination of the Third Reich is reminiscent of the prevailing attitude today toward the fate of Middle Eastern Christians in any country under the domination of radical Islam.

    • defcon 4

      YOu had me until you mentioned “radical” islam.

      • Texas Patriot

        Get used to it. Not all Muslims want to kill Christians and Jews on sight. It’s just the radicals who follow the teachings and life example of Muhammad.

        • Hass

          That’s true, but I guarantee you the majority would love to see them dead, especially the Jews.

          • Texas Patriot

            Personally, I can’t imagine that anyone would stay in a religion that according to its embedded doctrines requires them to convert or kill non-members. What’s worse is than any such religion is permitted in Western Civilization.

          • pupsncats

            Western Civilization has practiced genocide against the unborn, promoted, endorsed and wages a war against morality, ethics, honesty, human life, human dignity, the one true God and liberty for a long time. So why is it a surprise to you that the governments of the West would permit a religion of hatred and violence a voice?

            And why is it surprising that the governments of the West promote and endorse persecution and discrimination against Christians as they have all evolved into secular, humanist tools of indoctrination against the one, true God?

          • defcon 4

            That’s your ethnocentrism speaking. You’re trying to apply YOUR values to their religion. But they don’t believe the way you do, otherwise they wouldn’t be muslimes at all.

        • pupsncats

          Maybe not all Muslims want to kill Christians and Jews on sight but when the time comes, as it will, when they must either choose Islam or death, they will band together with their fellow terrorist Muslims if they are true believers of Islam.

          • victoryman

            I’m still looking for that creation of the state run media, the “Moderate” Muslims.

          • pupsncats

            According to the left, there just has to be moderates who are Islamists and don’t really believe what Islam teaches because there are moderate Christians who don’t believe what Christ taught and moderate Jews who don’t believe what the Jewish religion teaches and moderate Republicans who don’t believe in the principles of the Republican Party and moderate Democrats who don’t believe in the principles of the Democratic party. There are simply hiding, afraid that if they expose their moderation, they won’t benefit from the religion they don’t really believe.

        • defcon 4

          They don’t oppose it…

        • Gee

          There is no ‘radical’ Islam. There is just Islam and that in itself is an extreme cult

          • Texas Patriot

            Gee: “There is no ‘radical’ Islam. There is just Islam and that in itself is an extreme cult.”

            Islam is an ideology and political movement based on the teachings and life example of Muhammad, who is regarded as the Prophet of Islam. The teachings and life example of Muhammad are what they are, they have been the same for 1400 years, and they are not subject to change. On the other hand, even among nominal Muslims there are those who are fully committed to following the core teachings and life example of Muhammad, and there are those who are less so committed. Thus, the former would be considered “radical” to the extent that they endeavor to get at the root of their religion and follow the core of authentic teachings.

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/radical

            rad·i·cal (rd-kl) adj. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.

          • defcon 4

            Have you ever thought that the only reason muslimes aren’t “radical” is because they don’t yet have the power to do so?

          • Texas Patriot

            I think it is difficult to make a blanket statement like that, and I don’t spend a lot of time wondering what Muslims are really thinking. There is no question that Islamic teachings counsel Muslims to feign friendship with non-Muslims when in non-Muslim majority countries, so it is entirely possible that how they seem may be a far cry from how they really are. My overall perspective is that Islamic ideology is incompatible with Western Civilization and should not be permitted in non-Muslim majority countries.

          • defcon 4

            If you can’t identify your enemy you lose.

          • inachu

            neocons tearing USA up from both sides and the middle.

        • Drakken

          A so called radical muslim is shooting at you, a so called moderate is reloading. Islam is the problem period, wherever islam goes, the blood always flows.

        • inachu

          Iran was not radical until we went over there to iran to mess with them. They had babes in bathing suits and not its repressed because we lost their trust.

          • Texas Patriot

            That may be true, but there is no question that its government has been extremely radical for at least the last 30 years.

          • inachu

            When you mistreat a dog it will then bite you! Duhhh

    • pupsncats

      When we don’t learn from history, we repeat it.

      • victoryman

        100% correct. History repeats – only the names change.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Glad to see this headline on Frontpagemagazine.com. Screenwriter, polemicist, playwright, and novelist Ben Hecht was even more outraged in his memoir CHILD OF THE CENTURY (1954), long before Peter Wyman and Deborah Lipstadt wrote their important books. I summarized much of Hecht’s obsession with indifference to the Holocaust here: http://clarespark.com/2013/12/07/ben-hecht-v-ben-urwand-the-un-jewish-left-and-assimilated-jews/. “Ben Hecht v. Ben Urwand, the un-Jewish Left, and assimilated Jews.”

  • Gee

    The New York Times and Time Magazine – two of a kind.

    In 1938 both supported the German Chancellor. Time went so far as to name him Man of the Year

    • pupsncats

      Through David Horowitz’s extensive writings, he has exposed the reasons why the majority of American Jews have supported dictators, despots, and mass murderers. It is really their indoctrination, upbringing and training by Communists, Socialists, and Progressives who all idealize the revolution and it is the revolution that matters. Of course the revolution is never-ending because there is always oppression against their goal of world domination. They are always a victim and always agitating for what they believe will bring the utopia they hope for.

      • EarlyBird

        I think it is Jews’ historic persecution which makes them sensitive to the plight of the little guy. It was many American Jews who were the first white Americans to stick their necks out for black Americans trying to gain full citizenship rights during the Civil Rights era.

        • pupsncats

          Yes, of course it is partly because of the historic persecution of Jews which make them sensitive to the plight of the little guy. But since the overwhelming majority of them are liberal/Communist/Socialist/Progressives, they are in fact, aiding in the persecution of the little guy by making him a slave to an overreaching, anti-liberty state machine. And the system, capitalism and a free market, which has made so many of them very wealthy, they disparage and use their wealth to try to destroy it, thus helping further to destroy the very future of the little guy.

  • inachu

    Downplaying and or the opposite trying to portray as if it just happened yesterday is just as bad as the deniers or the downplayers. I will not fight the argument for or against it. Instead I will recognize it for what it truly is. It is history. Nothing more and nothing less. To promote it or to lessen the meaning for what it is is totally wrong. But my new understanding of the holocaust is this: It has happened to all races creeeds unto all nations. No matter your blood line or geographic location it has happened to your people be they black white asian and all the races inbetween.

    The part that makes this wrong is to make your pain worse off lets say if there was a new genocide happening right this very moment and yet you still try to lay claim as your genocide was worse off than the one currently happening today. Perhaps to lay claim to the word GENOCIDE itself perhaps we need a genocide watch website to watch the globe to hold nations and its people responsible. Oh but by doing that would lessen the points and facts of a genocide that happened more than 50 years ago when there are at least a dozen genocides happening today this very day going unreported. But Shhhhh! Don’t say that! You might say because that lowers the bright candle for your cause because you speak only for your people alone and not for genocide in general for all people.

    That is the distinction between the downplaying…. Because you try to say downplaying is anti-semitic when in fact you are just fooling yourself and the world.

    • Bklyn Farmer

      So, you’re advising Jews to forget about the holocaust and above all else keep your {Jews] mouth shut. Thanks for you advice but no thanks.

      “in fact you [Jews] are just fooling yourself and the world’ – Yes you bloviated Jackass that is antiemetic

      • inachu

        Not at all tell your to keep your mouths shut. No not at all. All I am saying is lets pretend a new army comes along and kills an estimated 50 million whites and years later data is proved to be near 50 million. Ok now will you still trump your genocide to be any more or lesss important than theirs?
        That is the point I made above. Genocide itself is sick and wrong. But to say any one race of a genocide is higher than any other and not supporting other nations to prevent it just to sell your sad story to the world? See what I am getting at? Again quit fooling yourselves. People are people but not the way you address the issue at all.

        • defcon 4

          Instead let’s pretend islam doesn’t exist, but let’s not pretend.

        • Bklyn Farmer

          “Lets pretend” compared to 6 million men, women and children killed (including my cousins, aunts, uncles, both maternal and paternal grandparents, nephews and nieces) whose only crime was being Jewish.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Genocide itself is sick and wrong.”

          Then you ought to be alarmed about Iran, and about how the Iranian deal is portrayed by the mainstream media.

          “That is the point I made above. Genocide itself is sick and wrong. But to say any one race of a genocide is higher than any other and not supporting other nations to prevent it just to sell your sad story to the world?”

          It’s not “more important” but it is more relevant today. Because of current events.

          • inachu

            Not when more recent genocides have happened.
            Pol Pot much? Africa much? Many genocides even since the 1950′s Not telling anyone to shut up. Just letting others know that this is a shared experience but somehow the messianic people treat it in the singular.

          • inachu

            You are right! Cambodia Pol Pot and African genocide tops the list

    • pupsncats

      I don’t think anyone downplays genocide. The point of this article was a Jewish woman speaking specifically on the genocide of the Jews during WWII. And just because this happened 50 years ago does not make it any less horrifying or less important than the current inhumanity against man that is currently occurring.

      • inachu

        What I got off from it was she was telling newspapers to “NEVER FORGET”

        • pupsncats

          I think she was specifically admonishing or attacking the New York Times, run by a Jew who she feels was responsible for the extermination of Jews since his immoral act of hiding the truth inside “the paper of record” made him complicit in their deaths.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The actual point is that “we” have yet to learn the most important lessons from that history. That is why we talk about it today. It’s still a crucial work in progress because too many people have too many reasons to deceive.

          Hello? POTUS just signed a deal with messianic lunatics that think their mission is to finish off what Hitler started and people today are talking about how MAD has always worked before with communists therefore don’t worry about jihadis either.

    • reader

      So, what’s your point? Does it make NYT legitimate in your eyes that they went out of their way not to protect the Jews being slaughtered en mass? Ok. What about this then: in the early 30s, NYT had also intentionally buried any information about Holodomor, i.e., punitive famine imposed on predominantly Ukrainian farmers by Stalin and resulting in millions of casualties. Was that more wrong or more right in your enlightened opinion?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Talk is just talk. It’s all the same. Why bother with specifics? Just watch TV.

  • Myrtle Linder

    WWIII, If GOD be with us, will be after, what is known, as the rapture in Where JESUS CHRIST will come in the clouds for HIS people. 1 Thessalonians 3:14-18

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Actually, I think that Stalin and Mao have him beat. But when one talks about numbers like that, it tends to dehumanize and get lost in the maze.

      • glpage

        Unfortunately you are right. Hitler was a piker compared to Stalin and Mao.

    • victoryman

      Just look at the Bible . The countries that came against the Jews……long gone on the ash heap of history.

      • defcon 4

        Saudi Arabia isn’t gone…and it’s keeping Jew hatred alive and well in the 21st century as well as funding worldwide islamic terrorism.

  • tokoloshiman

    That the most horrendous crime of the 20th century – the industrialized slaughter of millions of jews gypsies and other so called undesirables by the NAZIS – was trivialized by the mighty new york times and relegated to back pages to be deliberately lost amid lesser issues of the day says a lot about this disgusting rag , its superior attitude and expedient complicity in covering this unequalled crime against humanity up.
    The whole USA ALONG WITH ROOSEVELT is to be condemned not only for this
    callous attitude but also for the turning away of jews in their time of need.
    Jews like SULZBERG should be ashamed.
    Even today while the most egregious calumnies are perpetrated against ISRAEL
    and OBAMA time and again shows his contempt for Israel and Netanyahu , the new york times retains its hateful bias and supports the left and the democrats at all costs.

  • Spencer Warren

    In 1943 the New Republic devoted a full issue to the extermination of the Jews of Europe. In 1942 or ’43 a rally was held in protest at Madison Square Garden whose speakers included Governor Dewey, former President Hoover, Mayor La Guardia and William Greene, whose CIO might have been expected to oppose increasing immigration to protect its members’ jobs. And about this time Senator Langer of North Dakota made a Senate speech urging action.

    This said, some aspects of this horrible history require some nuance. For example, about fifteen years ago I attended a panel discussion by Air Force experts and historians who concluded bombing the railways to Auschwitz was not a practicable operation: the Germans rapidly repaired damage and there was a mindset that we did not bomb POW camps which extended to concentration camps, whose mass gassing was not understood. Also, although I cannot here cite the scholarly sources, the conduct by President Roosevelt, or neglect, is a subject of reasonable debate. This cannot be said of the Times, despite the widespread anti-Semitism in our country at that period.

    • reader

      I don’t see anything showing Roosevelt’s concern about mass slaughter of European Jews, of which he had to be aware to a great degree. To me, the extent of the American Jewry’s loyalty to Roosevelt and his legacy is simply unbelievable. I can only explain is by saying that the smarts of those people are very much exaggerated.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    A year ago whenever the Times carried a piece on Obama, the comments section would be filled with comments all praising the Liar-in-Chief in the White House. Whenever I would submit a comment critical of Obama, it would not be published. A naive reader could easily get the impression that ALL readers were behind Obama. Of late, however, perhaps because the Times has come to recognize that the tide is changing and Americans have had their fill of the great impostor, the Times has begun to cut down on its censorship out of fear of ending up on the wrong side. The Sulzberger family is to be pitied. They represent another American tragedy.

  • Vengeful

    Sulzberger should go through the chimney himself.

  • Ken Kelso

    Horowitz is totally right.
    Did anyone see this story?

    http://fresnozionism.org/2013/11/emotions-first-at-the-ny-times/#comments
    Emotions first at the NY Times
    Nov 20, 2013

    The emotion-laden photo of the mother of murderer Hussein Gawadra, used by the Times to illustrate its article about the murder of Eden Atias
    Jonathan Haidt, in his excellent book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, argues that we are motivated by emotions, not reasoning. Logic can rationalize our beliefs (and the actions we take) afterwards, but emotions drive us.

    Even the facts that we use to rationalize our feeling-driven conclusions are perceived, remembered and given weight selectively, through an emotional filter.

    So if you want to persuade someone of something, start with the emotions. Facts and logic can wait.

    I often wonder if the journalists of the anti-Israel media like NPR and the NY Times do this out of conscious intent or instinctively. Both focus strongly on the emotional aspects of the conflict. While there may be ‘balance’ in the facts presented, the weight of emotional content is always on the side of the Arabs.

    Do they have meetings in which the editors explain the best propaganda techniques? Or are they expected to have learned this stuff in Journalism school?

    Recently the NY Times embarrassed itself by going more than a little over the line in this direction when it published a story about the gruesome knife murder of a sleeping 19-year old Jewish soldier, Eden Atias (my take on the murder is here), illustrated with a photo of the grieving mother of the murderer!

    The article, which devotes more space to Israeli plans to construct homes outside of the Green Line than it does to Arab terrorism, incitement and murder, is bad enough — but the photo provoked a storm of complaints to Margaret Sullivan, the Times’ public editor, who responded with a rare admission that the Times had made a “wrong choice” in selecting it to illustrate the story.

    But the editors’ mea culpas ignored the real problem, that the emotional content of the photo was biased, and pleaded only to the lesser crime of irrelevance:

    [Ms Sullivan] spoke on Monday afternoon to two senior editors at The Times. Both agreed that the photo was a regrettable choice. The dominant image with an article should reflect the overall point of the article and the reason for its newsworthiness.

    “This did not represent the essence of the story, which was clearly the moment of the Israeli soldier being stabbed,” said Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor in charge of photography. She said a less-senior picture editor chose the photograph, along with one representing what she considered the other side of the story, which showed an Israeli police officer at the crime scene.

    The selection of the Palestinian mother’s image with the article was an effort to achieve balance, but such an effort was not appropriate in this case, Ms. McNally said. In the print editions of the newspaper, the two photographs were published on an inside page with the Palestinian photograph above the other. On the website and in other digital presentations, the Palestinian photograph was by far the more dominant image and remains so.

    Of course that misses the point, which is the bias inherent in the choice. But not satisfied with merely looking dense, the editors felt the need to make up a transparent excuse:

    It was only later in the news cycle that photographs of the soldier’s funeral — which would have been an appropriate choice for a dominant image — became available, she said. (A photograph of the victim would also have been appropriate, she said.) “We should have waited for that or substituted it once it came,” she said.

    Were there no photos of the crime scene or of Eden Atias available immediately after the murder? Funny — all the Israeli newspapers had them. How is it that the carefully composed picture of the murderer’s mother, which could only have been taken hours after the murder and the arrest (by Palestinian Gonzo photographer Muhammad Ballas), was available to them early and these others were not? And why didn’t they substitute another picture?

    Stupid or evil: you decide.

    • pupsncats

      Liberalism has succeeded because it uses emotion rather than reason or logic in all of its rhetoric about everything.

      The 15 second soundbite, twitter, texting, and tweeting are the modern methods of information and instruction. Meaning there is no time nor desire to use the brain to think critically or reasonably. Emotion is the tool most use for all decisions they make.

      • inachu

        Liberalism is the same coin from conservatisim. Richard Perle made sure of that.

      • EarlyBird

        “Liberalism has succeeded because it uses emotion rather than reason or logic in all of its rhetoric about everything.”

        You do realize, don’t you, that this entire website is dedicated to whipping up emotions of anger and resentment in conservatives. It’s a propaganda site.

        • Drakken

          Look in the mirror progressive. Libtard feelings to the neth degree!

          • defcon 4

            I don’t think Erlyturd has ever criticised islam in even the mildest fashion, I don’t have to wonder why.

        • pupsncats

          Yes it is partly a propaganda site if you consider reality and truth propaganda.

          But I doubt that most of us who read this website simply use the emotions or anger that we feel against what we consider the ills of the world as a total basis for the decisions we make. I sincerely do think that is exactly what liberals do because there isn’t any reality, any hard and irrefutable evidence, any truth that if it proves them wrong, convinces them they are wrong.

    • EarlyBird

      I don’t believe either the NYT or NPR is “anti-Israel.” I recently heard a very powerful story on NPR about an American man living in Israel whose wife was almost killed by a terrorist, who eventually went and confronted the terrorist and forgave him.

      I also don’t generally believe in the “liberal media” myth. Fox and right wing radio are obviously not part of the “liberal media.” MSNBC sure is. But generally, media outlets work on ratings. They get ratings with easy attention getters, not serious journalism any more. And what happens is that there is a Narrative, and what generates attention are stories that rub up against the Narrative.

      Regarding Israel, Americans would overwhelmingly state that Israel is the victim in the Middle East. That’s the Narrative. So when there is a story which shows or looks otherwise, they are going to run that “man bites dog” story. Other sins are ones of omission rather than comission.

      But look for the money, not the politics, and that’s the answer.

      • Drakken

        And that same muslim jihadist that the liberal progressive jew forgave still ends up very dead for their stupidity, for every jihadist that gets forgiven, there are 100 that do kill, why is it that you always take the liberal progressive side of the muslim problem?

        • EarlyBird

          He was a hyper-religious Orthodox Jew, you idiot. That is why he moved from America to Israel in the first place.

  • Ken Kelso

    Not only the NY times cover up genocide the Nazis were committing against the Jews.
    When it came to the Babi Yar massacre in 1941 in Ukraine, the NY Times wrote that 30,000 Russians and Ukrainians were killed.
    The Times didn’t even mention that all the victims in Babi Yar were Jews.
    The NY Times opposed the U.S recognizing Israel in 48.
    The NY Times opposed Israel bombing Iraq’s nuclear facility in 81.
    Last year, Roger Cohen of the Times basically comes out and says Israel should do nothing while Hamas fires hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians.
    Ari Lieberman totally destroys the lies of Roger Cohen.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/roger_cohen_and_the_new_york_times_useful_idiots.html

    • laura r

      people have turned on their own all through the ages. its all about keeping hteir job, making $.

  • pupsncats

    Anna seems to think liberal American Jews can be moral. Haven’t they proven over and over again they support, own, finance or contribute to the individuals, organizations, foundations, and politicians who are morally bankrupt?

    • inachu

      They split hairs down to the religious level among themselves and that was how the BALFOUR documents came about.

  • ratonis

    The Tiimes also covered for Stalin’s terror famine in 1933-34 through the false lying articles of Walter Duranty.

  • SoCalMike

    The NY Slimes repeats history.

  • georgejochnowitz

    The owners of the New York Times have always been terrified that they would be viewed as the owners of a Jewish newspaper and therefore vulgar and low class:

    http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/Buried.html

  • SoWhat78

    Instead of constantly decrying “anti-semitism” and portraying all of “the jews” as 100% innocent 100% of the time, has it ever occurred to Mr. Horowitz and his fellow “Jewish” supremacists that just maybe they should engage in some critical self reflection and ask what actions by the collective “jewish” community have led to “anti-semitism”? Could it be that just maybe not 100% of “the jews” are innocent 100% all of the time?

    Why do we not look at the mass murders committed by “jews”, such as the ones committed in the bolshevik revolution?

    Why is it that pretty much every racial, religious, and ethnic group can be criticized, but healthy criticism of “jews” is met by calls of “anti-semitism”?

    • EarlyBird

      No, this is a place where Horowitz post propaganda. Critical self reflection is not allowed here. Jews are always the victims, and anyone to his left (and that’s most everyone) and Muslims are always the perpetrators.

      • reader

        Your stupidity can compete only with your restlessness, peanut.

        • reader

          or rather, only the peanut’s restlessness can compete with its stupidity.

        • EarlyBird

          You’re in no position to be calling anyone stupid, fool.

          • reader

            It’s safe to say that very few people are in no position to call YOU stupid. Granted, there are levels of stupid, for sure. But you are the king of stupid. I must give credence where it’s due, your majesty.

          • defcon 4

            Defending islam0fascism is it’s own brand of stupid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Actually he was perfectly positioned and pulled it off beautifully.

    • reader

      How is it that you pin mass murders committed by the bolsheviks on the “jews” (strange orthography may be explained by the proverbial Freudian slip here), when there was only one ethnic (non-practicing) Jew among the 18 members of the original bolshevik Sovnarkom government? By the way Trotsky’s ethnicity is being questioned by a few historians who traced his lineage to Pushkin and Rayevsky families.

      • defcon 4

        Trotsky didn’t remain part of the bolshevik oligarchy for long and his retirement package was nothing to be happy about either.

        • reader

          For starters, Trotsky had been a menshevik – only to join and take over Lenin’s operation in the midst of the preparations to the bolshevik coup in the second half of 1917.

      • SoWhat78

        Are you saying “jews” played little to no role in the bolshevik revolution? What about the “jewish” role in the murder of Ukranian Christians? Or can we not talk about that because they are the chosen?

        Also, since when is “jewish” an ethnicity or a race? It seems that you are implying that it is an ethnicity. In fact, you outright say it is. It looks like you have much more in common with the nazis you vilify than you might have thought.

        • reader

          I’m not technically a Jew, although I have Jewish relatives. I also have Christian Ukrainian relatives, who are ashamed of people like you. You asking questions that you can’t affirmatively answer to. Again, name 18 Sovnarkom members. You’ll find more Ukrainians in that bunch than there were the Jews – that’s on record. Of course, you can argue that Dybenko is not really a Christian, but a Commie. And so was Trotsky. If “jewish” is not ethnicity, Trotsky cannot possibly be a Jew, and he said so himself. I assume that you are a Ukrainian, and you are a disgrace to Ukrainian people. I can tell you that in your face – as part Ukrainian myself.

          • SoWhat78

            I’m not the one affirming that “jewish” is an ethnicity. It is the fans of this site that are doing that. Again, the people here claim to be anti-nazi, but they seem to have some things in common with the nazis. Are you saying that “jews” have never been involved in the genocide of others? Have they been 100% innocent 100% of the time? Or are we not allowed to ask that question?

          • reader

            You are shifting the goal post by asking to prove a negative. Let’s start all over. YOU made a specific accusation charging that the Jews are responsible for the genocide against Ukrainians committed by the bolsheviks. YOU have no evidence of that, i.e., you can’t show that the bolsheviks were dominated by the Jews. Moreover, your logic does not even make sense. Bolsheviks are marxists, i.e., atheists, by definition. If being Jewish is not being an ethnic Jew, it means that being Jewish means observing Judaism. How can an atheist be an observant Jew? So, tell me, are you ignorant, or you just hate the Jews so much that you’d say anything to smear them?

          • SoWhat78

            I didn’t say “jews” were solely responsible. The point I’m making is that many refuse to look at atrocities committed by or helped to be committed by “jews”. Why are “jews” considered to be above criticism? Will you at least admit that “jews” are not 100% innocent 100% of the time? Or are all perfect. We have no problem criticizing various other religions, ethnic groups, racial groups and various other groups. Why can we never criticize “jews” and ask important questions about their behavior as a collective?

            These people considered themselves Jews, did they not? I seriously doubt, though, that they had any lineage to the tribe of Judah ( the literal meaning of Jew). It’s doubtful to extremely unlikely that ashkenazic “jews” have any mideastern lineage.

            I don’t hate “jews” or any group as a collective. I try to judge individually. Someone who no longer sees himself as a “jew” and who renounces the destruction caused by “jewish” supremacism and ethnocentrism is an admirable person in my book.

  • EarlyBird

    Many people here seem to consider that the NYT’s attitude about the Holocaust might have been unique, when in fact it was mainstream.

    Anti-Semitism was pretty common back then in America. Nothing compared to Europe, of course, but still. People were keen to turn a blind eye during the run up to the Holocaust. It sullied the plans to interact with this plucky, energetic albeit funny looking new German leader who was hell bent on bringing Germany back into the economy. And heck, the Jews and communists…who liked ‘em anyway?

    Read “In the Garden of the Beasts” about the US ambassador and his family in Germany on the eve of WWII. They witnessed countless acts of brutality towards Jews and non-Jews deemed insufficiently pro-Nazi, and America’s power elite – the White House, senators, congressmen and business leaders – were far more interested in getting paid back the massive debt Germany owed America than getting on Hitler’s bad side for some “tough medicine.”

  • Elliott Alhadeff

    For 6 million plus to have been allowed to have been systematically exterminated, there must be hundreds, if not thousands of similar accounts like this. More outrageous is the reality that the present world is observing the calls again for the extermination of Jews, and there is neither condemnation nor the prospect that if and when that extermination is reinstated, a different result will occur.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

      Part of that reason is because no one believes that Iran could actually pull it off, given that unlike the Jews then, Israel is armed to the teeth.

      • defcon 4

        Nuclear fusion weapons have a way of making that irrelevant.

  • Mortimer Post

    NYT=another false god of illiberal liberalism….helping Jews hate themselves since___!

  • Father Dacius

    Why, given their history on many things, anyone would look to the New York Times as the “paper of record”, as they have held themselves up to be, is beyond comprehension. Since the advent of the internet the truth about history and current events is at the world’s fingertips. They are a dinosaur, a curiosity and perhaps a criminal of the past. May God let them slide into obscurity and irrelevancy.

  • Bklyn Farmer

    For someone who quotes Adolf Eichman in their avatar as you do, anyone who just mentions Israel in a non-derogatory manner must drive trolls like you nuts.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    120% of what?