A dispatch from Jerusalem in today's New York Times runs with two locator maps that depict Jerusalem. On both maps, the city is divided by a heavy black line. On one side of the line is the label "Jerusalem"; on the other side is the label "East Jerusalem." There is no key with the map to explain what the black line represents, but it looks like an attempt to show the border that divided Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967. That was a sad period in Jerusalem's history, and now it has passed. That is, it has passed as a matter of reality, but not, apparently, as a matter for the New York Times. The city has been knit together since 1967 with new buildings and parks. A tourist could walk the streets of today's Jerusalem and not notice when crossing the heavy black line from what the Times labels Jerusalem to what the Times labels East Jerusalem. The state of Israel, which controls the area, has annexed the entire city and considers it its undivided capital. The government of the United States is guided on the matter by the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The 1995 act stated as the "policy of the United States" that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected" and that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel." It makes no more sense for a New York Times map in 2001 to show "East Jerusalem" and "Jerusalem" than it would for the paper to show "East Berlin" and "West Berlin." In either case, if the news article had a historic angle, and the anachronistic nature of the labels were explained, then the labels might make sense. But in the absence of any such explanation, the map makes it look like the Times is nostalgic for the 1948-1967 period during which Jerusalem was divided, Jews had no access to the Western Wall, and the Jordanians used the gravestones from Jewish cemeteries to build army latrines. The Times labeling contradicts both the situation on the ground and the laws of Israel and the United States.
'But': An article in today's New York Times reports of the Middle East Media Research Institute: "The group is pro-Israel, but its translations of Arabic news media have proved reliable." What's with the "but"? Is it ordinarily the case that the translations of Arabic media provided by pro-Israel groups are unreliable? Or that pro-Israel groups would be expected to distort facts to advance their case?