These two emphasize Israel as attacking "Hamas," despite the fact that the strikes were totally indiscriminate and (as you know) mostly killed civilians. It also describes the talks as "stalling" as if this were some kind of natural disaster or unexplained event, despite the fact that it was due entirely to Israel continuing to massacre Palestinian civilians. This is pretty characteristic of most mainstream press coverage of Gaza:

This one talks about Israel's borders "shifting" as if it is just some kind of natural process that happens sometimes, instead of the result of aggressive imperial expansion.

This is from the (pretty excellent) twitter bot that tracks edits to the NYT's headlines and abstracts. Red is original text, green is the edit, and white is what stayed. You can see the wild shift in emphasis that the edit created. The locus of action shifts from Israeli police attacking Palestinian families to "militants" firing rockets and Israel being forced to respond. Police no longer attacked "families," but rather "protesters." This is a particularly egregious and obvious example of propaganda.

Standard operating procedure that we've seen a ton by now: when Israelis are killed, we use the active voice and directly name who killed them. When it's Palestinians, it's all passive voice and vagueness like it was an act of god.

ETA: Here's a new one from today!