Form this article in the New York Times about the recent massacre of famished Palestinians near a food convoy.
"In a rare move, Israel was involved in organizing at least four such aid convoys to northern Gaza this past week after international aid groups suspended operations to the area, citing both Israeli refusals to green-light aid trucks and rising lawlessness. But on Thursday, that effort backfired on Israeli planners."
What a beautiful rhetorical backflip! Israelis are the victims of this "back-fire" that killed 112 starving Palestinians. Very nice way to put it when every source says that the Israeli soldiers opened fire on civilians looking for food. Nobody fired back at the shooters and the gunfire lasted a long, long time. So a NYT journalist (it took two of them to write this brilliant piece) can think, write, submit and get published that the operation back-fired on the Israeli organisers when the Israelis fired at innocent civilians looking for food, resulting in 112 deaths and much more wounded (many by bullet wounds). That's utterly shameful. It would be ridiculous were it not so tragic.
Does any of the persons involved in publishing this piece in such a high standard newspaper realise that it blatantly shows the unimaginable bias of all of them? The victims are not Israelis at all, they clearly unequivocally are unarmed civilian Palestinians. The trap sprang on famished residents of Gaza leaving more than a hundred dead and many-fold that wounded. How much do you have to distort the reality to be able to write that it back-fired on Israelis?
When will the NYT start apologising for its anti-Palestinian bias?