A top-of-the-front-page news article in today's New York Times about the violence in Israel contains the following assessment of the causes of the clashes, blaming the Israeli politician Ariel Sharon: "It is widely believed here that the present violence was touched off by Mr. Sharon's visit on Thursday. The Israelis have not formally acknowledged that. Today, though, a senior Israeli official said, 'It's clear to everyone that it's the Sharon show that created the original damage.'" Yesterday's Times news story was even more blatant in blaming Mr. Sharon, writing of "the third day of fierce fighting set off by the defiant visit on Thursday of a right-wing Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon, to the steps of the ancient mosques atop Jerusalem's Old City."
Bizarrely, however, today's New York Times story fails to report on the comments of Israel's prime minister about the causes of the violence. The prime minister, Ehud Barak, has offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinian Arabs, and if anyone could be expected to blame the violence on Mr. Sharon, who is Mr. Barak's political opponent, it would be Mr. Barak. Yet here is a report from this morning's New York Post: "When Barak was asked by Israeli state radio whether the visit last Thursday by opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount had sparked the riots, Barak answered clearly, 'No. It has nothing to do with it.' His spokesman, Gadi Baltyansky, when asked the same question by a BBC reporter, answered, 'Every Jew has the right to visit the holiest place for the Jews.'"
It's just unfair of the Times to assert in its own words that three days of fighting "were set off by the defiant visit" of Mr. Sharon, and that that view is "widely believed here," and to quote an unnamed Israeli source saying that "It's clear to everyone" -- and then to omit the on-the-record public statements by Mr. Barak and his spokesman exonerating Mr. Sharon. It's not just that the Israelis "have not formally acknowledged" that the violence is Mr. Sharon's fault; their elected leader has flat-out denied it.
For the third day running, the Times coverage erroneously refers to the Dome of the Rock as a mosque. One story inside the paper referred to "the fabled Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem,"; another refers to Mr. Sharon's "tour of the ancient mosques atop the Old City," referring to more than one mosque. A mosque is a place where Muslims gather for public prayer. The Dome of the Rock is not a mosque. There are not regularly held prayers there. For one thing, there isn't much room there for the crowds and prostrating that are a feature of Muslim worship; there's just a narrow passageway surrounding the rock itself. For another thing, the perfectly nice Al Aksa mosque is right nearby. Christian visitors to the Holy Land who were unaware of these distinctions mistakenly called the Dome of the Rock the "Mosque of Omar," but that term has fallen out of use because of its inaccuracy. Anyone with any knowledge of Islam could tell the Times that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque.
Joe Lieberman, Smoker: The New York Times misses a wonderful opportunity today to tweak Joseph Lieberman. A news story today about Mr. Lieberman's editorials in the Yale Daily News reports in its lead paragraph that Mr. Lieberman "called for a national no-smoking campaign -- in 1964." Lower down, the story quotes the editorial as saying "It is imperative that a major public and private campaign to discourage cigarette smoking should begin." Yet a close examination of the photograph accompanying the story shows the young Mr. Lieberman holding to his mouth an instrument that looks an awful lot like a tobacco pipe. The article makes no attempt to reconcile Mr. Lieberman's anti-tobacco editorial stance with his own apparent habits.