propaganda on behalf of Syrian rebels in the Times: Yarmuk Camp

Look how this article, which reads like the press statements of the defunct Fee Syrian Army, makes such an effort to avoid blaming the rebels in harming civilians:  "The government has repeatedly given permission for aid convoys to enter, then blocked them, as people continue to suffer and even die from a lack of food and medical care.  On Monday, a relief convoy to the Yarmouk camp, home to Syria’s largest cluster of Palestinians, was forced by gunfire to turn back."  Was forced by gunfire?  Is gunfire a person or a militia? The gunfire in the article is a typical euphemism for Syrian rebels.  Then the article says this: "The United Nations agency for Palestinian relief said that the government insisted the convoy enter through the southern gate — requiring a dangerous drive through contested territory — not the more secure, government-controlled northern one."  So the US and UNRWA were upset that the Syrian government allowed the convoy to go through rebel areas? But we thought that the rebels are innocent in the denial of food to the camp? Which way is it?