The NYTimes and the Temple Mount


As we all know, the NYTimes is quite capable of reporting on many news items, large or small, important or less so, relating to supposed Jewish offenses and ''bad behavior in addition to the regular fare of granchildren tattooing themselves with numbers their grandparents received in Aushwitz.  And now, after a few days passed, the paper finally gets around to highlighting events at the Temple Mount of the last week, a bit belatedly in this Jodi Ruderon story who was assisted by Khaled Abu Aker and Isabel Kershner :
    New Clashes at Site in Jerusalem Holy to Both Muslims and Jews
    JERUSALEM — Two Israeli police officers were slightly injured in a clash at a holy site in Jerusalem that erupted during a demonstration after Friday Prayer, and one Arab protester was arrested.  The protest occurred several days after a Jewish hard-liner was accused of breaking the ban against Jews praying at the fiercely contested site, called the Temple Mount by Jews and the Noble Sanctuary by Muslims...Religious Jews revere the site as the location of their ancient temples; for Muslims, it is the third holiest site in the world. The second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, was set off in 2000 by a visit to the site by Ariel Sharon, then the Likud Party leader...Since Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 war, the compound has been operated by the Waqf, the Muslim religious endowment, with security provided by Israel. Jews are allowed to visit the site, except on Fridays, but not to pray there.
First of all, although it is a straighforward reportage, since there is a reference to 2000, why are there no reports on the recent outlandish Muslim claims of chemical attacks on Al-Aqsa foundations, of underground excavations, of a falling tree due to Jews, etc.?  Of the incitement and threats of violence?  And what about the Temple Denial campaign?
This is surely relevant to the story, at least as much as the events of the year 2000.  
Can we not expect a little perspective?  Depth?
She could have added that a judge in Magisrate''s Court had a very strong personal opinion about the police policy regarding prayer, access and the Temple Mount, so:
A Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court judge said Wednesday that the police should allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount – an exceptional remark given that the High Court of Justice has ruled that policy on the Temple Mount is the sole purview of the police...“There is room to allow for Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount,” said Judge Malka Aviv, during a remand hearing for Hagai Weiss, the son of Prof. Hillel Weiss, who was arrested on suspicion of trying to pray at the site.  She added that “the [police] explanation that Muslims don’t approve of Jews praying on the Temple Mount cannot, in and of itself, prevent Jews from fulfilling their religious obligations and praying on the Temple Mount.”  To her mind, she said, Jewish prayer should be permitted on the Temple Mount “in a structured fashion, in a place designated for it,” that would maintain the security of Jewish worshipers.
Second, not only "religious Jews revere the site".  Is the implication that secular Jews do not revere it?  Or that they do but not because the Temples were, or weren''t there?  Is there Temple denial among Jews?  Moreover, it is a human rights/civil liberty issue.  
Very unclear what was intended.
But there is another element in the story that is problematic.
is this true?
    The second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, was set off in 2000 by a visit to the site by Ariel Sharon, then the Likud Party leader.
Remember, the first Israeli casualty was the previous day, Sept 27, 2000, was Sgt. David Biri, 19, of Jerusalem, who was fatally wounded in a bombing near Netzarim in the Gaza Strip.  And as for the myth of Sharon setting off the violence, let us recall what happened that day, September 28, 2000, as Israel''s report makes clear:
...the groundwork for violence had been laid by the Palestinian leadership well before the visit...The visit was not the cause of the violence...The declared purpose of the visit was to examine archaeological sites on the Temple Mount following work that had been carried out by the Muslim Wakf, notably in the area of Solomon''s Stables...the relevant Israeli authorities consulted with the Palestinian side...The Palestinian side was presented with the route of the proposed visit...The consultations with the Palestinian side included a telephone conversation on the proposed visit between Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and the Head of the Palestinian Preventive Security Organisation in the West Bank, Jibril Rajoub, on 26 September 2000 in which, by reference to the contemporaneous note of the conversation, Mr Rajoub indicated "if Mr Sharon refrains from entering the Mosques on Temple Mount, there wouldn''t be any problem." On the basis of this consultation and other measures adopted, the visit was not prohibited...a communique published by Hamas on 27 September, the day prior to the visit, [stated] inter alia as follows: "The Jews have clearly and unequivocally declared their ambition in continuing occupation of Jerusalem and the holy Aqsa Mosque. It is quite clear that plans to demolish the Aqsa Mosque and build the so-called Jewish temple in its place were no longer the aspirations of limited or extremist groups in the Zionist society, as some believed...We call on our people to head tomorrow Thursday to the holy Aqsa Mosque to confront the terrorist Sharon and prevent him from entering the Mosque and its yards...Other declarations and communiques calling for opposition to the Sharon visit were published by Fatah...There is a widespread belief, actively advanced by the Palestinian side, that demonstrations by Palestinian youth took place spontaneously in reaction to the visit by Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. That belief is fundamentally flawed. The visit by Mr Sharon, however sensitive, was not the cause of the violence. It was an excuse for a violent campaign, the groundwork for which had already been laid by the Palestinian leadership. The object of the violence was the creation of new facts on the ground - the bringing about of a new reality to bolster the Palestinian position in its relations with Israel. The means to this end were the inevitable Palestinian casualties - inevitable because of the confrontational practices that would be pursued by the Palestinians.
Is the New York Times publishing a true record?
Exactly what political ideological line does their news fit?