Et Tu, Anthony Shadid? He may win a Pulitzer for serving Israeli propaganda here?

I know that working for the New York Times prevents one from really expressing his journalist findings freely.  I know the role of the Foreign Editor in such a paper: how editing basically tone done any possible incrimination of Israeli in any war crimes by its terrorist army.  But Anthony Shadid today stooped so low in this really bad piece of journalism.  I saw the title and read Ethan Bronner's front page article and knew what to expect.  I knew that the paper was going to justify the murder of Arabs on four fronts.  This is the trend.  Anthony Shadid of the Boston Globe would never ever have written this piece. What is his contention?  That the lousy Syrian regime is manipulating the Palestinian refugees and their supporters.  Maybe Shadid should spend a bit more time in the refugee camp to know first hand that the camps have been boiling ever since Bouazizi set himself on fire.   The rage of the refugees is real as is the rage of the supporters of the Palestinian cause (Lebanese and non-Lebanese) who flocked to the border.  Look at the only evidence that Shadid presents in this piece:  "Mr. Ziadeh, citing informants in Damascus, said at least four buses were seen Saturday leaving two camps where factions most loyal to Syria exert control."  Would this ever be accepted in the New York Times as an acceptable source on allegation regarding the Israeli regime?  Let me add this:  Shadid in recent days has been citing the authority of "Abu something" regarding developments in Syria.  Would the New York Times ever allow the authority of "Abu something" as a source on crimes by Israel?  Anthony Shadid: this piece today is probably the lowest point of your career--and this from someone who has admired and praised your work over the years.