The convenient way to think of The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg is as the old model of Peter Beinart. Before Beinart decided that it was more lucrative to keep moving to the radical anti-Israel fringe of the movement, he was Goldberg, a guy who was the establishment voice on Israel.

Goldberg, like Beinart, keeps moving toward the anti-Israel camp because he knows that’s where the establishment action is.

There’s no future for pro-Israel commentators in the mainstream media. Bari Weiss’ case helped settle that. Beinart is the anti-Israel edge of the wave, but Jeffrey Goldberg’s special role is serving as the political hitman for anti-Israel administrations.

And now that Biden is in the White House, Goldberg is back with another anti-Israel screed. I’ll spare you the details since it’s typical of the echo chamber talking point word salads that the media specializes in now, but as with the Soviet press, the message is the article, not its contents.

Obama used Goldberg to engineer a break with Israel while blaming it on Netanyahu. It was the narrative that many American Jewish voices, especially in the establishment, ate up. 

Goldberg’s latest narrative is a familiar one.

Jeffrey Goldberg / The Atlantic: ‘Netanyahu Is Playing With Fire With the Democrats’

Uh-huh.

It’s the same old Goldberg hit job in which Democrat anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel is blamed on one guy. If Netanyahu steps down, Goldberg and his administration and establishment masters will need a narrative.

And I don’t doubt that they’ll find it.

Remember, before Rabin was killed and made into both a saint and the reason why Israeli extremism had ended the hopes for peace, he was being bashed by the Goldbergs of the era, on behalf of the Clintons, for not making enough concessions.

Any Israeli leader can be and will be portrayed as the obstacle to peace because the simple truth is that the terrorists will never agree to make peace and their enablers will never admit that, and will never stop blaming Israel for their own corruption.

Bill Clinton’s changing story about blaming Arafat and then Barak ought to sum it up well enough.

At Tablet Magazine, Josh Hammer’s “The Peace Process That Never Was”, tells the story of the familiar and destructive peace myth.

 Under sustained international pressure, and despite no change in Palestinian-Arab opposition to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state within secure borders, Israel offered a second two-state offer, this time at the U.S.-hosted Camp David Summit in July of 2000. Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer to Arafat—96% of Judea and Samaria—was emphatically rejected. Then-President Bill Clinton has since clarified the extent to which Arafat was to blame at Camp David: “[Arafat] did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own.”…

Nonetheless, Israeli governments continued to offer the Palestinians a seat at the negotiating table. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 two-state offer was summarily rejected by PLO/PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who today is over 15 years into his four-year term, and whose 1982 academic dissertation trafficked in sordid Holocaust denialism. Nor did the situation change in 2009, after Benjamin Netanyahu became the first Likud prime minister to formally endorse the two-state framework, or in 2010, after Netanyahu implemented a 10-month “settlement freeze” in an attempt to entice Abbas to join him at the negotiating table. Abbas’ obstinance was, counterproductively, rewarded by an Obama administration that abstained from anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations, and tried to realign America’s regional interests toward the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abbas spectacularly rejected a peace deal negotiated on his behalf by John Kerry. And, as usual, it was Israel’s fault. 

That’s the only narrative that Democrats have since the Clinton era. It’s the only spin that Jeffrey Goldberg can offer.