There's a big difference between providing a mild personal opinion and being blatantly bias to either side of the conflict though. If the aforementioned "Israeli forces" happen to "open mortar fire on a helpless and unsuspecting village", the reporter can safetly say that the attack was "unprovoked" because that's what factually happened - there was a village and it was fired upon for no apparent reason. A reporter could also conclude that "such horrifying acts" happen everyday in the region, thus indirectly saying that he or she finds raining fire and shrapnel on a village without any provocation "horrifying", because that's what it factually is - the military should know better than to randomly fire upon civilian targets.
Journalism is a lot like walking the tightrope - you're on the thin line between the objective and the subjective and you have to provide the news to the people while simultaneously cast judgements without burning either side. There is nothing wrong in condemning an act that is worthy of being condemned.
Of course everything depends on the news piece discussed, really - sometimes an opinion is not required, but a projection is still welcome. Say, for instance, with stockmarket news. "Stock of Milky Way has gone up by 15% and it is likely to continue increasing according to analysts [citation needed]" is a thing. Then again, that's the analyst's opinion, not the reporter's.
