I began by searching for a news story detailing the failure of The New York Times to accurately report the extermination of Europe’s Jews during World War II, and came across a book titled, Buried by the Times.

It is remarkable that just before November 29, 2022 faded to make way for November 30, I discovered this volume because Tuesday marked the 75th anniversary of the passage of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181, which called for Jewish and Arab coexistence in Palestine. Now, check the brief summary on the subject of the book, and particularly this sentence:

It examines how the decisions that were made at The Times resulted in the minimizing and misunderstanding of modern history's worst genocide.

This observation, I think, justified the purpose of my initial search for this article, because I wanted to see if, in fact, among the first Holocaust deniers was The New York Times itself. Those four words at the start of the title, “Buried by the Times” suggest that The Times, indeed, along with members of the State Department, were the first Holocaust deniers — while the tragedy occurred.

In May 2005, The Times reviewed Buried by the Times which did not challenge, effectively, my charge that the paper could be said to be among the first Holocaust deniers.

Six years ago, I called attention to a Times editorial of June 14, 1938, which callously reported on the tragedy of the 900 Jews fleeing Hitler on the “St Louis” turned away from Cuba, and barred by Roosevelt from safe harbor in the United States. The Times published three editorials on the St. Louis tragedy; not one pleaded with FDR to take in these Jews fleeing Nazi barbarity (Kristallnacht occurred seven months earlier.) — the Jews returned to Europe on the St. Louis, and were ultimately were murdered in the Holocaust.

What does this review of history have to do with the present?

Also on Tuesday, The Times published a front-page story with this headline, “Jewish Allies of Trump Recoil After He Hosts 2 Antisemites” — internet link here.

Author Jonathan Weisman informed readers that Kanye West — now calling himself “Ye” — “had already been denounced for making antisemitic statements,” and described 24-year-old Nick Fuentes as “an outspoken antisemite and Holocaust denier....” Weisman concluded that Mr. Trump “grant[ed] the antisemitic fringe a place of honor at his table.” This comment is, of course, sheer invention by Times propagandist Weisman. True, Ye and Fuentes were with Mr. Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence, but where is the evidence that he supports their biases, much less honored them?

Deep within the article, Weisman touches on a recent dinner held by the Zionist Organization of America, a dinner at which I myself was present. He reported that:

…the group honored the former president at a gala on Nov. 13 for his actions on behalf of Israel.

Per Weisman, ZOA president Mort Klein said that President Trump “deserved” the recognition — but then also included half a quote from Klein which accused Mr. Trump of “legitimiz[ing] Jew hatred and Jew Haters” which “scares” Klein. But, Mr. Klein’s (exaggerated) comment followed this description of Mr. Trump: “Donald Trump is not an antisemite. He loves Israel. He loves Jews.” (Mr. Trump ended his talk at the ZOA dinner with these words: “I love Israel.”)

People should not be surprised that Chuck Schumer apparently referred to the Trump meeting as “dangerous” and “pure evil.” Nor should people be influenced that a Trump-hater like the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt was quoted by Weisman as saying, “The normalization of antisemitism is here....”

The left, joined by their fond-of-backstabbing “Republicans,” has been demonizing Donald Trump for more than seven years — and with Mr. Trump remaining in the public arena, the demonizing is far from over.

At the dinner, Mr. Trump acknowledged that 75% of the Jewish vote went to the Democrats (Weisman labels ZOA right wing; I call it pro-Israel). Clearly, he would like to get a higher percentage of the Jewish vote. Still, he received the ZOA’s Herzl Award for a reason — for his actions that accrued to the benefit of the Jewish State. These actions are: recognizing Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights; recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital; and securing peace with the Abraham Accords. Does the meeting with Ye and Fuentes mean that Donald Trump regrets his support for the State of Israel? Of course not. Does the fact that 75% of the Jewish vote goes to Democrats mean that Mr. Trump, by his pro-Israel policies, is pandering to the Jewish vote? Again, of course not.

By the way, during his ZOA talk, Mr. Trump told how he faced opposition from foreign leaders and “experts” on his pro-Israel foreign policy, opposition that predicted more violence. But, then again, that’s been the prediction for the last 75 years, leading to denunciations from the “experts” of Israel and the U.S. Under a Democrat, the Abraham Accords could never have happened — the best that can be said of a Democrat president vis-a-vis Israel: he is always in thrall to “the experts.”

Did Ye sandbag the former president by bringing the 24 year-old with him? Most likely. Should Trump have met with Ye? Only someone opposed to a second Trump term would mindlessly holler “no.” On that point, I strongly recommend an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, suggesting that Trump’s effectiveness as president (especially in view of the coup-like resistance he faced throughout his [first] presidential term) trumps Trump’s coarseness. The irony in meeting with Ye, et al., is that Mr. Trump was more than likely just exercising good manners.

Image: The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.