Actually, it’s not.

In a nutshell: post-colonialist theory, and theories of Western oppression of indigenous peoples.

All one has to do is cast Israel as the bastion of Western colonialism and mass perpetrator of oppression of indigenous peoples, and….voila!

(P.S. It doesn’t matter how accurate or inaccurate such a “casting” might be, as long as one feels it to be true…. Besides, ignoring or denying any evidence to the contrary is generally encouraged or even demanded in “cases” such as this.)

http://www.danielgreenfield.org/2011/05/how-left-went-wrong-on-islam.html

Ah, but which other country does Obama hate?
And which other does Iran?

(Is this what’s known as a four-fer?)
= = = = = =
“…the destruction of Israel and Iran…”

A bit of a stretch, that. More than a bit of a stretch.

Facilitating Iran is a way of “thinking outside the box”, of helping one’s enemies because it’s an idea “so crazy it could actually work!”

Or…facilitating Israel is an ingenious way of “leveraging” Israel to stop being so “intransigent” and “make peace” with the Palestinians.

And if Israel doesn’t take the hint (i.e., the “encouragement”); if Israel decides it WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES “make peace” with the Palestinians, hey, well “we” tried—“we” did our very best to help Israel—it’s not “our” fault if Israel is suicidal.
“We” had her best interests at heart.
Really. “We” care more about Israel than the Israelis.

(Just like “we” care about America…and have its best interests at heart.
Really….)

Ah, but whom/what else does Obama hate?
And whom/what else does Iran?

(Is this what’s known as a four-fer?)

Yes, a majority made the decision to reelect Trump. The democrats made the decision to cancel the majority of American’s votes. And a corrupt government supported that assault upon the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold.

I’m not positive of the dates but the tide has switched a few times so far.
As I recall, Dems had the WH and both houses of Congress under Bill Clinton (not uncommon ever since the Great Depression) but not for long (Newt) and Dems weren’t yet demonic. So it wasn’t such a big deal.

W Bush and Repubs had the WH and both houses briefly until the Dem media promoted the “culture of corruption”. GOPe used their fleeting power to stuff the channel with wasteful spending, thus PorkBusters was born. A missed chance.

Next, Obama’s Dems had the WH and both houses of Congress. They didn’t solve much of anything but maybe they used that time to ram ObamaCare through? They actually cemented a lot of stuff and stuffed the ranks of gov’t employees with Dem partisans.

PDJT and Repubs had the WH and both houses but House and Senate GOPe broke every promise they’d made and decided the main enemy was not Iran, not Russia, not China, not the Dem Party … no, the MAIN enemy was the conservative base of their own party. What pinheads.

There may be lessons to be drawn.
On the one hand, the American voting public has made decisions. You can argue (I would, actually) that they can see there are problems, important problems, which need to be solved. And the voters have done what they could to make decisive moves to cause Change.
But so far, they’re rather schizo. OTOH, you can’t vote for Repubs and get Repub policies so their confusion is understandable. Dems promise moderation but deliver extremism, so that’s the other side of the coin.
But my point is that there could be method in the madness. It’s not just aimless thrashing, alternately giving each party a mandate.

or, as a minor variation perhaps,

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

— H.L. Mencken, A Little Book In C Major