The New York Times story, "Cease-Fire in Gaza Expires, and Strikes Resume," on the end of the 72-hour ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, was yet another illustration of the paper's seeming inability to cover Israel fairly and accurately. 
In a piece meant to be an in-depth examination of casualty claims, The New York Times explains that Palestinian NGOs get some of their data from doctors, but fails to remind readers of Hamas's instructions that Palestinians lie about civilian casualties. The newspaper of record places Israel on the border between Gaza and Egypt, ignores prominent legal scholars on Gaza "occupation," and seemingly invents an authoritative legal definition of human shields. 
A window into the mindset of New York Times reporters: parsing how Steve Erlanger described the latest Palestinian terror attack in Israel. (This article has been updated.) 
Thanks to its partisan journalist Robert Mackey, The New York Times is loaded with the type of extremists who cheer the death of Israelis, rant about the "Zionist butcher regime," and call for Israel to disappear. 
A front-page analysis of Palestinian and Israeli societal attitudes by Jodi Rudoren provides an exemplar of how the newspaper inverts the truth, cherry-picks citations, omits relevant and crucial information to stack the deck against Israel and portray it as the primary culprit in the conflict. 
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose last column on the conflict between Hamas and Israel was wildly off target, misfires again in his current column, Who's Right and Wrong in the Middle East? Maybe he should try a different topic. With rare exceptions the New York Times just can't get it right on Israel, and the op-ed page is no exception. The latest example: a column by Nicholas Kristof, which says Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks, then immediately reverses course. 
Days after a NY Times editorial completely distorted a poem quoted by Netanyahu, columnist Roger Cohen similarly misrepresents Amos Regev's call for returning Gaza to the "Stone Age – a reference to demilitarization and nothing more. 
The New York Times has done it again. While it jumps to issue blanket, front page condemnations of Israeli society as "racist" whenever the opportunity arises, such sweeping moral conclusions seem to be absent when the target isn't Israel.