You’re clearly coming at it from the point of view of the indoctrinated - you pre-believe something (i.e. are prejudiced) and then seek a way to interpret reality to yield “conclusions” that match your conviction and are not at all even trying to analyse it rationally.
Any rational analysis of this “article” in the current context and given the past explicit biases and actions of those who participated in making it will yield the conclusion that what’s in there has a high probablility of being Propaganda and cannot be trusted to be truthfull.
It really boils down a pretty old principle: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. I totally understand defaulting to believe anything sourced from the IDF and delivered via the NYT in the past, before all this started, but at this point after all they said that turned out to be outright lies along with what they did using such lies as justification, we’re very much on the domain of “shame on you” when it comes to such sources as the New York Times and the IDF.
Does it mean this article is with absolute certainty Propaganda and not actually true? Of course not: there is a small probability that it’s not Propaganda, since like “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction” there is a core of believability to it (which curiously is both like a true story AND like the best Propaganda), so only time will tell if it’s mostly true or if, like the “weapons of mass destruction”, it is just Propaganda.
The rational take on this article (so, not the take of those driven by something irrational like conviction, which is why I so often emphasied Skepticism and Analysis on my posts on this) is to treat it as having zero informational value, unless independent information arises that clarifies it.