By: Tzirel Rosenblatt

A recent article in The New York Times profiling Zakaria Zubeidi, a convicted terrorist freed from Israeli prison, has drawn intense criticism for its treatment of Jewish history and its portrayal of Palestinian violence. As The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) reported, the controversy stems from the paper’s characterization of the Temple Mount—Judaism’s holiest site—in a way that some scholars and critics say implicitly denies or minimizes the existence of two ancient Jewish temples in Jerusalem.

The offending passage, embedded in a lengthy feature on Zubeidi’s artistic pursuits following his release in a hostage-for-prisoners swap, described Ariel Sharon’s 2000 visit to the Temple Mount as “a provocative visit by an Israeli leader, accompanied by hundreds of police officers, to a major mosque complex in Jerusalem that is built on the site of an ancient Jewish temple.”

By referring to a single “ancient Jewish temple,” critics argue, the Times appears to elide centuries of Jewish religious, cultural, and national history. As the JNS report observed, the statement contrasts sharply with the overwhelming consensus of historians, archaeologists, and theologians who maintain that two successive temples—the First and Second Temples—stood at the site, each central to Jewish identity and practice across more than a millennium.

When pressed for clarification, Nicole Taylor, managing director of external communications at The New York Times, directed JNS to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the Temple Mount. “We mean each of the various temples built sequentially on the same site,” Taylor explained, adding that “the reference to a single temple is often used to refer to the various versions of the temple that were built in sequence over several centuries.”

While this explanation sought to contextualize the phrasing, it did little to assuage critics. As the JNS report noted, the Britannica entry refers to the “Temple of Jerusalem” as either of two temples central to Israelite worship, underscoring that both are widely acknowledged as historical realities. The Associated Press stylebook—the touchstone of mainstream American journalism—similarly describes the Temple Mount as “the walled, elevated area in Jerusalem’s Old City that was the site of the ancient Jewish temples.”

The issue, then, is not only one of semantics but of historical framing. Critics argue that by flattening the historical record into a vague reference to “an ancient Jewish temple,” the Times risks validating narratives that deny or obscure Jewish history in Jerusalem.

Scholars interviewed by JNS have been unequivocal about the matter. Lawrence Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, stated last year that “there is zero debate that two temples stood in that place in scholarly literature. Mohammed’s ascent ‘happens’ from there only because it is the Temple site.”

Schiffman contrasted the firm historical evidence for the Jewish temples with the Islamic tradition surrounding Muhammad’s night journey. “The story about Muhammad going on a miraculous horse all the way from Arabia to Jerusalem and ascending to heaven is a religious belief. It’s like saying that Jacob prayed there,” he explained. “They are trying to be neutral, but that confuses the facts.”

Steven Fine, professor of Jewish history at Yeshiva University and director of its Center for Israel Studies, echoed this position in comments to JNS. “It is an historical fact that the Jewish temples were built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” he said. Fine pointed out that archaeological evidence for the Second Temple, which stood until its destruction by the Romans in 70 C.E., is abundant and uncontested.

Although evidence for the First Temple—constructed during the reign of King Solomon—has been more difficult to excavate due to centuries of rebuilding and restrictions imposed by Muslim religious authorities, literary and biblical sources provide ample documentation. “No historian doubts the presence of an Israelite Temple on Mount Zion in biblical times,” Fine asserted.

The temple controversy, however, is only one dimension of the criticism directed at the Times article. Honest Reporting, a nonprofit watchdog, accused the newspaper of exhibiting a “double standard” in its treatment of Palestinian terrorism. “Time and again, some of the most brutal attacks on civilians are presented with a kind of reverence, as though sadistic violence were simply part of a noble struggle,” the group said, according to the report at JNS.

The Zubeidi profile, Honest Reporting charged, is “a textbook example.” Zubeidi, a veteran commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, has a long history of terrorist activity, including his role in two West Bank shooting attacks in 2018 and 2019. Freed in a controversial prisoner exchange following the October 7 Hamas massacre, he has since attempted to recast himself as an artist.

The Times’ treatment of Zubeidi dwelt heavily on his creative pursuits while framing his militant past in the language of resistance. Critics argue this presentation sanitizes his role in acts of violence against civilians and perpetuates a narrative in which Palestinian perpetrators are lionized while their Israeli victims remain largely invisible.

The furor over the Times’ wording is part of a larger struggle over historical memory and the politics of narrative. As the JNS report noted, disputes over the description of the Temple Mount go beyond editorial style; they touch on fundamental questions of legitimacy, sovereignty, and identity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For Israel and the Jewish people, the Temple Mount is the holiest site in the world, the location of both the First Temple—built by Solomon in the 10th century B.C.E.—and the Second Temple, reconstructed after the Babylonian exile and later renovated under Herod the Great. Its destruction by Rome marked a defining trauma in Jewish history, commemorated annually on Tisha B’Av.

For Muslims, the site is home to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, revered as the location of Muhammad’s ascension to heaven. The site is known as Haram al-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary. The delicate balance of these religious associations has long made the Temple Mount a flashpoint in Israeli-Palestinian tensions.

By employing language that appears to dilute Jewish historical claims, critics argue, the Times risks contributing to a broader discourse of delegitimization. “It is not merely sloppy journalism,” one Israeli analyst told JNS. “It is part of a larger pattern where Jewish history is minimized while Palestinian claims are amplified.”

The Times’ reference to Ariel Sharon’s 2000 visit to the Temple Mount underscores the enduring sensitivity of the issue. At the time, Sharon, then leader of the Likud opposition, ascended the mount with hundreds of police officers. Palestinians immediately decried the visit as a provocation, and the episode is widely cited as a catalyst for the Second Intifada.

Yet, as the JNS report pointed out, the Times article did not explain why Sharon’s presence at the site was so contentious—particularly given its centrality to Jewish identity and worship. Instead, it emphasized the Muslim framing of the complex as a mosque site, with only a cursory nod to its Jewish significance.

Critics argue that this imbalance reflects a broader trend in Western media coverage, where Jewish connections to Jerusalem are portrayed as conditional, contested, or secondary, while Islamic narratives are granted primacy.

The difficulty of excavating the Temple Mount further complicates the picture. As JNS reported, Muslim religious authorities who administer the site—the Waqf—have consistently prohibited archaeological exploration. This has limited the ability of scholars to uncover direct material evidence of the First Temple.

Nevertheless, artifacts such as the “Temple Warning Inscription” and numerous finds from surrounding areas strongly corroborate biblical and historical accounts of the temples. The lack of direct excavation, scholars stress, does not equate to lack of evidence, nor does it justify denial. “Archaeological evidence for the Temple rebuilt after the return from the Babylonian captivity and continuing until 66 C.E. is not contested,” Fine told JNS.

The debate sparked by the Times article underscores how much is at stake in the language used to describe Jerusalem’s holiest site. For Israelis, the denial or dilution of the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount is not merely academic—it is perceived as an attack on the legitimacy of their historical and national identity.

As JNS concluded, “the Times’ profile of convicted murderer Zakaria Zubeidi is not only troubling for its romanticization of terrorism but also for its minimization of Jewish history. These are not neutral editorial choices; they have real-world consequences in shaping how global audiences understand the conflict.”

In a region where history and faith are inseparable from politics, the power of words cannot be underestimated. The Temple Mount stands as a symbol not only of religious devotion but also of the enduring struggle for recognition and legitimacy. For many Israelis, the Times’ phrasing was yet another reminder of how precarious that recognition remains in international discourse.

The uproar over the New York Times article demonstrates that media framing is far from a neutral act. By referring to “an ancient Jewish temple” rather than the First and Second Temples, the paper ignited a controversy that goes to the heart of Jewish historical consciousness and the legitimacy of Israel’s claims in Jerusalem.

The scholarly consensus on the existence of two temples is overwhelming, supported by archaeology, literature, and historical tradition. To conflate or diminish this history is, critics argue, to play into narratives of denial that fuel ongoing conflict.