Isabel Kershner and the standards of the New York Times

You should all read this piece in the New York Times from yesterday. It encapsulates all that is wrong with the New York Times' coverage of Arab-Israeli issues. Look at this sentence: "The Israeli military responded to the unusually intense barrage with tank and helicopter fire." Israeli attacks are always portrayed as "responses" or "retaliation" when in reality Hamas said that it was responding to Israeli killing of civilians days earlier. Notice how NYT reporters are allowed to editorialize only against enemies of Israel, as when Kershner wrote: "unusually intense barrage" from Hamas. We should ask Kershner: Were Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza in 2008 "unusually intense"? Or were they unusually soft and mild, by your racist standards? But Kershner felt that it did not serve Israeli propaganda interests enough, so she adds this weird sentence: "And while Hamas said that it was firing at Israeli military bases along the border, mortar fire is notoriously inaccurate..." So Arabs are terrorists even when they target military bases because their fire is "notoriously inaccurate"? How accurate has Israeli fire been in the history of the conflict, Ms. Kershner? And could a NYT reporter be allowed to keep her/his job if she or he were to offer that Israeli fire is "notoriously inaccurate"?