Your Bloodsucking Leech is not your Ally

Someone in America must be made to understand that enough is enough. Israel is nobody's ally. It never was and never will be the ally of anyone but itself.

Israel is a bloodsucking leech that sucks the blood of anyone who lets it. Those that came close to it in the past have learned that lesson and quickly distanced themselves from it. The exceptions are the dupes who make up the Congress of mentally retarded Americans. And so the time has come for someone to tell these dumbbells they need to wise up before their devotion to Israel starts hurting America irreparably.

The dumbbells might need a hard lesson that will do them some good and a text from which to teach them that lesson. In fact, there is one that's readily available. It came under the title: “Obama's World,” an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “The President's not-very-smart foreign policy legacy.” It was published on January 14, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

The editors of that publication composed their argument in two parts. One part discusses the Middle East; the other discusses the world. The editors, more or less, like what President Obama has accomplished in the world outside the Middle East, but they take issue with him on matters pertaining to his handling of the Middle East.

When you read what they say on how the President handled the affairs of the world, you conclude that they are impartial observers. But when you read what they say on how he handled the Middle East, you conclude that they are driven by a volcano on full eruption in their bellies.

Here is a condensed version of what they say about Obama's world:

“Outside the Middle East, the legacy is a mite bit hopeful. Obama was right to thaw relations with Cuba … He showed foresight in pressing for agreements to curb the global threat that is climate change … And he was right to reorient America toward the Far East, where he pushed for a free-trade agreement – until the political winds blew hard and killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

Anyone could have written these words because they are as mainstream as they come.

What follow are two sections comprising what the editors say about Obama's Middle East. The first section has to do with the way that the President handled the Arab and Muslim Worlds. The second has to do with the way that he handled Israel:

Section one: “Barack Obama left the United States strategically weaker in the world … Aside from his steady hand in the war against al Qaeda, it is hard to identify an unalloyed success … In Libya, he deposed Khadafy but failed to plan for the aftermath … Poorly planned withdrawal from Iraq allowed Al Qaeda remnants and Saddam loyalists to reconstitute … And in Syria, there is a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions”.

What we can deduce from these words is that the editors of the Daily News loved it when President Obama treated the Arabs and the Muslims harshly. Look at this: “His steady hand against al Qaeda. He deposed Khadafy.” And they did not like it when he was soft on them. Look at this: “Poorly planned withdrawal from Iraq. Al Qaeda and Saddam loyalists reconstituting.” On the whole, however, they say that he “left the U.S. weaker in the world and was responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.” These guys are never satisfied.

Section two: “Attribute the failure to the President's habit of alienating a key ally … Obama has made a hash of the relationship with Israel … He forced through a naïve nuclear deal with Iran, which will not contain the Israel-hating mullahs … Obama destabilized the no-daylight friendship with the Jewish stated, and abstained from a United Nations vote condemning settlements. It's a big world. That's a very partial list”.

What we can deduce from these words is that the editors of the Daily News hated it when Barack Obama failed to express love for Israel. Despite the billions of dollars and the shiploads of weapons he gave it, the editors seem to say that the Israelis feel a collective emptiness in their lives because something is still missing.

The editors seem to imply that nothing can substitute for a few loving words expressed with tenderness. They could have sounded something like this: I, Barack Obama, declare my undying love for Israel, and my insane hatred for Iran.

Really? Do these people really hunger for love? Or do they feign loneliness because they have a ruse up their sleeve they intend to pull at the right moment?

The reality is that the editors of the Daily News and the Israelis could not care less about love. What they want is to get so close to America, they can stick more tentacles into its veins and suck more of its blood.

It is imperative, therefore, that this pretense be terminated before it becomes an out-of-control fatal attraction.