Hm.. maybe. I'm not real familiar with them, so maybe they bend the truth to fit the viewpoint sometimes and it's a bad idea to rely on them. But, just looking at this one story I didn't see the viewpoint as all that different from a just mirror image of a factual-but-pro-Israel narrative in an ordinary Western paper. I thought just thought it was useful information about "how much does this resolution actually mean, what might make it enforceable, how much has it changed anything on the ground as of now (i.e. fuck all)" and such.
My concern with going case-by-case with articles from a generally non-credible publication is that even if this one is fine, it gives their other stuff undeserved legitimacy.
YMMV, but I feel that generally muddies the waters and does more harm than good.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
When covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they usually are objective and cover both sides fairly, such as this: IDF strikes fresh Hamas targets after 2nd rocket fired from Gaza Strip. However, during the conflict of 2023, they were less objective, focusing on the objectives of the Israeli military. In general, the Times of Israel is factual with a slight left-leaning editorial bias.
I'm not familiar but I just went and looked over their front page, and all I can say is wow. My favorite story was: "Why we must embrace the UN ceasefire resolution:
Ramadan will be over before we know it, and we can use the time to regroup, train, and buy some international good-will along the way."
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
This is incredibly notable, too. Saying Israel has "moderate freedom" is like saying apartheid South Africa had moderate freedom, with quite literally the 100% exact same little invisible asterisk after the statement.
