Israel’s political crisis puts a burden on its propagandists: How to make Americans feel that Israel is fine, despite the warnings of fascism. So where is the country’s most important journalist on Israel issues? Jeffrey Goldberg has been silent. In a fluid situation, he doesn’t know what to say to stay at the center of the discussion.

The New York Times on Thursday described Israel’s military occupation in dismissive quotations (i.e “occupation”) in a story concerning Israelis and Palestinians and the Democratic National Convention. In another breathtaking example of digital illiteracy and editorial discombobulation, the Times removed the insensitive quotation marks a few hours afterwards with no editorial explanation. Maybe it was all some kind of innocent misunderstanding. But there’s plenty of reason not to believe that.

‘NYT’ puts Dems’ battle over Israel platform on the front page. The exposure signifies that the Democratic Party is lost to Israel forever, as the progressive grassroots assert themselves, through the Sanders campaign, against a reactionary corrupt establishment that depends on pro-Israel money.

For a New York Times column saying that Israel’s future as a Jewish state is in peril, Thomas Friedman had to rely on reporting by the Israeli press, since his own publication has flubbed the story of the country’s deepening political crisis.

Israeli leadership is in crisis over the nature of the Jewish state, with leaders saying the political culture is reminiscent of Nazi Germany; and a NY Times editorial that treats the events as a political reshuffling is an embarrassing and obfuscating contribution to the discourse. What will it take for the Times to stop making the most preposterously generous interpretations of Israeli actions?

The front page article in the New York Times is headlined, “As Hamas Tunnels Back Into Israel, Palestinians Are Afraid, Too.” So it blames all Israeli attacks on Gaza civilians, killing thousands of them, on Hamas. This is straight out of hasbara central, and just what Hillary Clinton says.

“Extremist and dangerous elements have taken over Israel and also the Likud Party and have shaken the house and are threatening to hurt the inhabitants,” Defense Minister Ya’alon says in resigning. The shocking statement makes headlines around the world, but the New York Times treats the story like the CT governor’s race, and buries the “extremism” quote.

The DNC may give Bernie Sanders seats on a key platform committee to try and keep him on board with the Clinton campaign, but he is likely to push more equitable US policy in the Israel/Palestine issue, and Clinton campaign is “nervous” that this would be divisive, the Washington Post reports.

Another neoconservative says nice things about Hillary Clinton, even as the Democratic left signals its opposition to her foreign policy. Ralph Nader says “she scares the generals” and Oliver Stone slams the “viciousness” of her speech to the Israel lobby group AIPAC.

Chris Matthews says that Hillary Clinton was “concerned about Israel” when she voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and Mark Landler, NYT reporter who has authored a new book on her foreign policy, echoes him: “Precisely.” Now we know.