"But can the Guardian categorically say it stood up as a genocide unfolded and did everything in its power to report accurately? Certainly not. If Haaretz, a newspaper in a country with military censorship of the media, can have editorials openly using words like ethnic cleansing, what’s stopping the Guardian?”

Nothing. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/imagine-silent-terrible-evil-committed-gaza-inaction-censorship

Israel’s genocide was only on pause: for Palestinians woken on Monday night by a vicious wave of airstrikes, the resumption was no less shocking. More than 400 people – many of them children – were slaughtered in a matter of hours, in an assault that reportedly received the “green light” from Donald Trump. This mayhem was swiftly followed by evacuation orders – that is, forced displacement – raising the possibility of renewed ground operations. Israel’s excuse? A confected claim that Hamas hasn’t observed the terms of January’s so-called ceasefire agreement – the terms of which Israel itself has broken over and over again.

I read the Guardian enough to know that it tries to do two things:

A) Provide a neutral, unbiased presentation of facts and statements from all parties. This does include statements from Israeli officials that are false, but they are usually also provided with the context that shows they are false. It also includes reporting on investigations into the genocide, as well as statements from parties that accuse Israel of genocide.

B) Provide opinion pieces that explain what they think about the war, which in my experience is definitely negative towards Israel (which makes sense), see the linked piece that directly accuses Israel of genocide as an example.

I don't think moving goalposts to reframe a media outlet that is clearly very critical of Israel as having a pro-Israeli bias is a productive use of time and energy.