...There is, of course, a lively archaeological debate about the size and power both the Kingdom of David and of its capital city, and about whether David other early kings existed or were legendary figures of the King Arthur sort. There is, however, no scholarly doubt that the capital of an Israelite kingdom existed on the site known as the City of David from the tenth century until its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.

In its reporting on the City of David and on Medina Azahara, the Times has fallen into the post-modernist error of valuing facts according to its degree of approval for the narrative position that will benefit from their revelation. Preserving Medina Azahara as an archaeological park benefits those who maintain that Al Andalus was a model of convivencia, of a European Islam that was tolerant, open-minded, and peaceful. The corollary is that a tolerant, peaceful, open-minded, European Islam is likely to develop today.

That the Times finds this narrative congenial is apparent in the story of an ancient city treated with a tone of uncritical admiration and emphasis on its cultural achievements. Preserving the City of David as an archaeological park
benefits those who maintain that since the Jewish people are indigenous to Judea, they are entitled to live in a modern nation state on that land. The derogatory tone of the Times' treatment of the story of the dig at the ancient capital of the Jews is persuasive evidence that the newspaper does not find this position congenial...