Much of the attention on the Balfour Declaration—issued on November 2, 1917—focuses on the United Kingdom’s pledge to “facilitate” “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Israel-haters rage at this clause, claiming that Jews had no historical connection to their ancestral homeland and that Britain had no right to “hand over” immigration rights from local Arabs to Jews.
Balfour Declaration
On the anniversary of the Declaration in 1943, Heinrich Himmler of Nazi Germany sent a telegram to the “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem that Nazis and Arabs had the same enemies – Jewish invaders. In 2016, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas demanded an apology and reparations from Britain for issuing the Balfour Declaration, having repeatedly failed to destroy the Jewish State.
Telegram from Heinrich Himmler to Amin al-Husseini on November 2, 1943
But there’s another part of that same document that antisemites also detest. The closing line reads:
“…nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
That final clause—protecting Jews’ rights around the world—is precisely what modern antisemitic movements are trying to undermine. Groups like Within Our Lifetime, CAIR, and the Democratic Socialists of America openly campaign to dismantle what they deride as “Jewish power” in America.
They smear Jews as self-serving “capitalists,” accuse them of exploiting “Black and Brown bodies” for profit (as Rep. Rashida Tlaib has said), and seek to push Jews to the margins of public life—all because Jews affirm that the land of Israel is their homeland.
A century after the Balfour Declaration, its promise remains under attack—not only in the Jewish homeland but wherever Jews dare to live proud and free.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, declares that it operates on four humanitarian principles — humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. It is none of those things.
UNRWA is unlike any other UN agency. It is not the UNHCR, which manages refugees from every nation and conflict on earth. UNRWA is a creature of exception — created for a particular people, in a particular region, in a particular war.
The agency claims it was established to address the plight of refugees from Palestine following the 1948–49 Arab-Israeli War. But was that truly its purpose? When the fighting ended, thousands of Jews were also expelled from their homes east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) — from Jerusalem’s Old City, from Hebron, and across Transjordan’s illegally occupied territory. They, too, were refugees from Palestine. Did UNRWA help any of them? No.
Jews expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem via the Zion Gate by the army of Transjordan
From its inception, UNRWA was built to serve Arabs alone. Even when those same Arabs became full Jordanian citizens, the agency continued to provide them with housing, food, education, and medical care — benefits that by any logical standard should have ended once citizenship was granted. Instead, UNRWA preserved refugeehood as an inheritance, not a temporary condition.
Over time, UNRWA’s mission has morphed from relief to perpetuation. It has shown itself highly partisan, politically entangled, and morally compromised. Its schools and clinics may operate under the UN flag, but the agency’s allegiance is often indistinguishable from the politics of rejectionism that dominate its host territories.
During the 2023 Gaza war, UNRWA boasted that only it had the infrastructure to provide food, education, and healthcare to the Gazan population. Yet when 250 Israelis were dragged into Gaza as hostages, where was this agency of “humanity”? Did it deliver a single bandage or calorie to the kidnapped Israelis held underground? Did it condemn their abduction, or even acknowledge their suffering? It did not. UNRWA’s humanity proved selective, its independence nonexistent.
Its operations in Gaza function only through integration with Hamas, the political-terrorist organization that rules the territory. Schools double as weapons depots; employees have been implicated in massacres; aid is distributed by political loyalty, not human need. Leaders at the OCHA, another UN “humanitarian” group, are not shy to say they view Hamas a legitimate political representatives of Palestinians, not as a terrorist group.
UNRWA now has additional offices outside of its field operations. It opened an office in Turkey to “expand its political and financial support base,” backed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a political group. Very political. Neither independent nor neutral.
UNRWA is not a neutral humanitarian actor. It is a political instrument masquerading as one. It fails every principle it proclaims.
So long as UNRWA exists, it will preserve resentment, dependency and hatred. That agency founded in the shadow of war is the leading obstacle to peace.
The headline deal which everyone pretends is a simple human-rights triumph — hostages home in exchange for prisoners and a ceasefire — is, on its face, a moral imperative. Families and politicians, of course want the war to end and hostages back home. But if we treat this swap as merely a humanitarian ledger without thinking about incentives, strategy and deterrence, we invite a replay of October 7 — not because anyone wants it, but because the arithmetic of the deal makes another mass-carnage payoff seem rational to those who plan such crimes.
Palestinian Arabs wave Hamas flags atop the Red Cross truck bringing releases terrorists to the West Bank in November 2024
Here’s the cold calculus the bland statements miss.
Hostages for prisoners. Civilians for killers. A handful for hundreds. These trades have an immediate human relief value. The cost, however, is structural: they reset the reward function for terrorism. If a violent raid can reliably purchase the release of leadership, fighters, and political capital — and if the international response includes legal actions that delegitimize the responding state — then the net effect is to make mass atrocity an instrument of statecraft.
Celebrations for released Palestinian Arab terrorists in 2014
But the mathematics isn’t just – and must not be viewed as – the prisoner-to-hostage ratio. It includes the defensive response: the likely military, political, and territorial consequences of the assault. Hamas should be forced to accept that math too. If it contemplates another October 7-style operation as it has promised to do repeatedly, it must understand that the outcome will not be a tidy prisoner exchange and a televised victory lap. It will be the destruction of leadership and the decimation of military infrastructure, with broad international support for the defensive measures taken to prevent a repeat.
Which brings us to the international legal theater now playing out: the ICJ’s “genocide” accusations, the vociferous statements from states threatening arrest of Israeli officials, and the diplomatic embrace of Palestinian statehood in some quarters. These actions, however well intended by their proponents, have immediate strategic effects. They amplify Hamas’s narrative of global validation and, crucially, complicate the deterrent effect of defensive operations. If a state in self-defense risks being publicly criminalized or its leaders subject to arrest, the calculus of deterrence is altered – for the entire world.
So, what should sensible governments do if they insist on both protecting Palestinian rights and preventing another October 7? Two practical propositions:
If regional governments want backing for Palestinian statehood and avoid terrorism in their own countries, they should drop the ICJ case. the Arab and Muslim countries which backed the U.S. ceasefire plan should pressure South Africa and other countries which brought the case to drop the charges and let diplomacy take center stage. Law and diplomacy should be tools of stability, not absolution for terror strategies.
If the desired outcome is that populations on both sides live within range of cross-border terror and reprisals, then investing in defensive infrastructure as a bridge to a political solution is a rational step. The United Nations and donor states should be pressed to fund a replacement barrier between Gaza and Israel — walls and surveillance that reduce the risk of mass infiltrations, so that the question of where futures lie for Palestinians becomes a matter of state-building and safety inside Gaza, not a perpetual recruitment slogan for militancy.
Hamas breaks through security fence between Gaza and Israel on October 7, 2023, on way for mass murder and abductions
This is not a call to abandon human rights oversight or to whitewash abuses. Accountability and adherence to international law matter. But timing and incentives matter too. Legal actions taken in the heat of war — unmoored from a strategy to prevent recurrence — can harden positions and diminish the tools of deterrence. If the objective is to keep people alive and build a durable peace that allows Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) self-determination without repeated massacres, then international actors must think like engineers of stability, not moral prosecutors on a press release timetable.
If we are serious about both ending the war and preventing future acts of mass terrorism and barbarity, we must stop evaluating deals by immediate feel-good optics alone. The right measure of a deal includes whether it reduces the incentive to perpetrate mass atrocities, strengthens deterrence against their planners, and clears a path toward political arrangements that give civilians on all sides a future. Anything less is not a solution — it is an invitation.
Imagine someone telling the Jews of Europe in 1935: accept the butchering and burning of six million of your people, and in exchange, you will once more gain sovereignty in your promised land. Would world Jewry have accepted such a bargain? Unlikely. In Judaism, the value of life as supreme trumps all—perhaps even over the divine inheritance of the Land of Israel itself.
That is why Jews do not take pride in the defenseless millions murdered in the Holocaust. They mourn them, honor their memory, and vow “never again.” The lesson is not that Jewish blood must be spilled for redemption, but that Jewish life is sacred and must be protected at all costs.
This moral foundation has been a hallmark of Jewish thought for millennia. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 4:5) teaches that “whoever saves a life saves the world.” Zionism, too, was never about blood sacrifice but about safeguarding Jewish existence and ensuring dignity, freedom, and self-determination. The rebirth of Israel is framed as a triumph of survival, not of slaughter.
Yet for Palestinian Arabs, the moral calculus is inverted. Martyrdom is not mourned but celebrated. “Glory to the martyrs,” they shout, glorifying not only the dead but the genocidal jihadists of Hamas who carried out the October 7 massacre of unarmed Jews. Streets, schools, and summer camps are named for suicide bombers and killers. Death in the service of destroying Jews is not a tragedy but an achievement.
Columbia University placard of “Glory to the Martyrs”
This glorification of death is not limited to fringe radicals. The majority of Gazans have always supported slaughtering Jewish civilians in Israel. Yasser Arafat, the father of the Palestinian national movement, repeatedly praised the “martyrs” who died attacking Israelis, insisting that “our blood is cheap compared to the goal [Jerusalem].” His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, continues the same practice. He honors terrorists killed while attacking Israelis, declaring that “we bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem.” The Palestinian Authority, under Abbas, even pays stipends to the families of those who die murdering Jews—the so-called “martyrs’ fund.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas blesses blood “spilled for Jerusalem”
The same ethos echoed recently in the United States. At the People’s Conference for Palestine in Detroit, Michigan in August 2025, the crowd erupted in cheers for Gaza. Lameess Mahanna, sporting a shirt of the Palestine Youth Movement—employed at Columbia University—declared that the end of Israel would be “justice.” (1:35:00) She closed her remarks by leading the audience in a chant: “Say it clear and say it loud: Gaza, you make us proud!”
If Gaza, in her telling, is suffering a “genocide,” how can its dead make her and the thousands who echoed her cry, “proud?” The answer is chilling: because human life is secondary. For her, for Hamas, for the Palestinian leadership stretching from Arafat to Abbas, and from Gaza to Detroit, “justice” is not measured in lives saved, but in Israel’s disappearance. Every dead body is not a tragedy but a step toward their perverted form of “justice:” erasing the Jewish state and replacing it with Arab Muslim rule.
This is the precise inverse of the Jewish ideal. Jews mourn their murdered; Palestinians exalt theirs. Jews sanctify life; Hamas sanctifies death. Jews seek peace with dignity; Palestinian leaders glorify death as the path to victory. The Jewish lesson of the Holocaust is the necessity of Jewish strength to prevent further massacres. The Palestinian lesson of their own history is that more massacres are required for them to have “dignity.”
Which brings us to the central question: can two peoples animated by such irreconcilable values ever truly coexist? One side views life as sacred above all else. The other views life as expendable, even desirable, when spent in the service of destroying its cohabitants.
Coexistence demands a shared commitment to life. Without that, “peace” is a dangerous mirage—a prelude to slaughter, the ultimate source of perverted pride.
In many societies around the world, the concepts of honor and dignity are considered sacred. They are meant to reflect integrity, courage, and the moral fabric of individuals and communities. But in some cultures, the language of honor has been twisted into a tool of control, oppression, and even justification for murder—particularly against women.
“Honor killings” represent one of the most brutal manifestations of this warped morality. These acts of violence—often carried out by family members—are meant to “restore” honor allegedly tarnished by a relative’s behavior. In this framework, dignity is no longer something inherent in the individual, but something projected onto them by a society steeped in twisted religious patriarchy and fear of shame.
Honor killing by West Bank Muslim man
Across the world, honor killings persist, especially in parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Gaza regularly report killings tied to perceived slights like refusing an arranged marriage, or even being a victim of rape. In such societies, a woman’s body and choices are not her own. They are just tools in a selfish calculus.
It is especially revolting to note that some societies legally protect these “honor killings.” The Palestinian Authority still has the Jordanian Penal Code No. (16) of 1960, and the Palestinian Penal Code No. (74) of 1936 in the Gaza Strip which provide reduced sentences for such family murders of girls.
Unsurprisingly, societies that bless the murder of women and girls for “honor,” have no compunction about sacrificing them for the dignity of everyone. Gaza’s leaders send women and children into harm’s way while they hide underground. They have even less regard for female enemies: Gazan soldiers and civilians marched into Israel on October 7, 2023 and raped women in front of their families and burned girls alive.
The radical jihadists in Gaza have a vastly different definition about honor than people in the Global North. Insisting that a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict meet Gazan’s measure of dignity is a death sentence for women, girls and Jews in the Middle East.
A terrible attack unfolded in the disputed Kashmir region on April 22, 2025, in which 26 Hindu tourists were killed by radical Muslims. The region is disputed between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, where religious tensions and nationalist ones are intertwined.
The United Nations Security Council issued its typical condemnation about the attack, even for the highly contested Kashmir region. It called the attack “terrorism” and for the perpetrators and their supporters to “be held accountable and brought to justice.” It urged all countries to “combat [the scourge] by all means” while also expressing condolences to the “Governments of India and Nepal” who suffered in the attack.
None of those sentiments were shared by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on October 7, 2023 when 1,200 people in Israel were killed, 251 abducted and hundreds injured by radical Islamists from Gaza. Guterres didn’t label the attack “terrorism” and call for perpetrators to be held accountable. He didn’t urge countries to join the fight. He didn’t express any condolences for the government of Israel.
UN Secretary General offers tepid response to the worst case of terrorism in decades
The United Nations adopted the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) as forever wards and will protect them even when they commit mass atrocities.
It is time for countries of good conscience to withhold all funding and personnel from the global agency until a major revamping takes place. Key items include firing the Secretary General, dismantling UNRWA, the temporary agency uniquely for descendants of displaced SAPs, and removing permanent item 7 about Israel in the UN Human Rights Council.
It is time to financially bankrupt the morally bankrupt and biased United Nations.
On January 19, 2025, three young Israeli women who were held in captivity in Gaza for 471 days were released in exchange for 90 Palestinian Arabs held in Israel. Among those Arabs were Khalida Jarrar, a convicted member of the Palestinian terrorist group, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) who was involved in several plane hijackings; Nawal Abed Fatiha, who stabbed a 70-year-old Israeli man in a 2020 attack in Jerusalem; and Ibrahim Zamar, who shot two people near the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in 2023.
The gross inequality of the exchange in QUANTITY (but not quality) raised the eyebrows of the media, questioning the thirty-to-one ratio of people, while ignoring the equivalization of civilian women torn from their homes to convicted terrorists.
New York Times noting the “uneven exchange” of numbers while minimizing the qualitative difference of civilians for terrorists
But that is the story of the Middle East.
The Jewish State, is a liberal democracy which is roughly 76% Jewish, with 7.2 million Jews. It sits amongst 450 million Muslims in its immediate vicinity (about 62 times as many Muslims as Jews), in countries which are autocracies and almost completely Islamic. Just past those neighbors are another 500 million Muslims, some of whom have called Israel a “cancer” which must be removed from the planet.
The Israeli women who were freed – Romi Gonen (24), Doron Steinbrecher (31) and Emily Damari (28) – were simply living their lives when an estimated 3,000 Palestinian Arabs from Gaza stormed into Israel, killing their friends, family and pets, and then abducted them. That is in sharp contrast to the Palestinian Arab terrorists released by Israel who were waging a war of ethnic cleansing to rid the region of Jews when they were taken prisoners.
The media’s framing of the story whitewashes the difference in the nature of the exchange of innocents for criminals, asserting that they were just “accused of terrorism.” It calls out the numerical difference as rational, even while it vilifies Israel for the difference in the number of dead in the Hamas-initiated war.
New York Times describing Palestinian prisoners as simply “accused of terrorism”
The qualitative symbol of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is Neta Sorek, a Jewish feminist peace activist slaughtered by Palestinian terrorists as she walked in a forest in 2010. The quantitative symbol of the broader Jewish-Muslim Conflict in the Middle East is the grossly uneven exchange of 2025.
The United Nations General Assembly passed one of the most anti-Israel resolutions in its history on December 3, 2024. Titled “Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine,” drafted on November 25, it demands that Israel surrender to every Palestinian Arab demand, including giving up every inch of land that Israel recaptured in its defensive June 1967 war, removing all Jews from those lands to recreate the ethnically-cleansed situation advanced by the Jordanian army in the 1948/9 war, and to settle millions of Palestinian Arabs who never lived in Israel, into Israel.
The resolution passed with 157 states in favor, eight against (Argentina, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and the U.S.) and seven abstentions (Cameroon, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Georgia, Paraguay, Ukraine and Uruguay).
Where was Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom in rejecting this horribly biased resolution? Even though votes at the General Assembly hold no legal weight, the antisemitic vote amidst the global wave of antisemitism is both revolting and frightening.
And the resolution IS ANTI-JEWISH.
Section 7 demands that Israel “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian territory” and stop “modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.” That’s a direct call to remove Jews – and only Jews – from all lands east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) including Judaism’s holiest location of the Old City of Jerusalem.
“Settlers” means Jews – and only Jews – at the UN.
“Demographic composition” means the presence of Jews – and only Jews – at the UN.
The paltry number of Jews in the world are concentrated in a handful of countries today. Israel and the United States account for roughly 85% of global Jewry, but significant numbers live in France (453,000), Canada (391,000), UK (290,000), Germany (116,000) and Australia (113,000). These countries are seeing a toxic tsunami of Jew hatred run through the streets over the past year, and the governments are now blessing the idea that Jews should be banned from certain lands and stripped of basic human rights, even in their holy land.
The UN has moved passed the “Zionism is racism” resolution of the 1970s and sanctioned Jew hatred. If Jews can be confined to certain locations and banned from others in the Jewish holy land, it stands to reason that they can easily be placed into ghettoes and denied rights everywhere else.
Israel may be winning the regional war militarily, but global Jewry is losing basic human rights in the process.
On December 21, 2020, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres appointed Tor Wennesland to be the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. The appointment was headlined over and over again in the official UN announcement. However, Wennesland was also appointed as Guterres’s Personal Representative to The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, which was not highlighted.
Wennesland’s appointment as the UNSG’s representative to the PLO and PA has made his involvement in the “Middle East Peace Process” a sham. He has shown favoritism to the Palestinian Arab point of view repeatedly, and made his official coordinator for the peace process completely biased and unworkable.
Wennesland’s horrific bias was most glaring in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s brutal slaughter of 1,200 people in Israel and abduction of over 250 hostages. On the day after the savage massacre, Wennesland said the “priority now is to avoid further loss of civilian life & deliver much needed humanitarian aid to the Strip.” His “priority” was not on Israeli hostages. His “priority” was not on wounded Israelis. His “priority” was not on securing the safety of Israelis. His “priority” was not no bringing Hamas terrorists to justice. The UN Secretary General’s priority was on Gazans.
Wennesland repeated his priorities for Gazans a few days later on October 11, not on the Israeli victims.
When the Hamas mastermind of the October 7, 2023 massacre was finally killed a year later, Wennesland would simply “take note of the killing” and not call it a “watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism,” the way Ban Ki Moon stated about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. That’s because Guterres thinks that Hamas speaks for the Palestinian people, as UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths said specifically “Hamas is not a terrorist group for us, of course, as you know. It’s a political movement.”
On October 2, 2024, Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz decided to bar Guterres from the country because of Guterres’s anti-Israel statements and actions, the last being Guterres refusal to condemn Iran’s launching of 180 missiles at Israel. Guterres later condemned the attack and the UN Security Council said it continued to back Guterres.
Yet the fact remains that Guterres has surrounded himself with people who support Hamas and the PLO more than Israeli civilians. His gross bias and ineptitude has led to the worst loss of life in the region in centuries.
As well as a horrible spike in antisemitism around the world.
Another Guterres antisemitic/anti-Zionist ally is Francesca Albanese, the UN’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.” She has repeatedly been condemned for antisemitic remarks, including that Jews have no history in the holy land and are “colonizers.” UN Watch has tracked her comments supporting Hamas and their “resistance” against Israelis and the ADL has monitored her repeated antisemitism and Holocaust distortions.
The United Nations – spearheaded by its Secretary General – is endorsing a war against a member state and normalizing a violent jihad against Jews everywhere. The United States should call for the immediate removal of Guterres as well as his henchmen and women, or announce that it is defunding the global body and closing the headquarters in New York City.
Watch Holocaust denier and Hamas promoter Francesca Albanese talk at the September 2024 webinar at Brown University below. She will be speaking throughout the US in the coming weeks.
Have you ever heard of anyone refer to themselves as a Yugoslavian citizen of Slovenia? Of Montenegro? Can you imagine the media using such language for those people?
I am sure that there are some people who live in the various lands of former Yugoslavia – the six republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia, as well as the two regions of Kosovo and Vojvodina – who are not happy with the current configuration of the region. Some may dislike their ruling government or have been forced to relocate from one part of former Yugoslavia to another to be near kinsmen, maybe Croats moving from Serbia or vice versa.
Former Yugoslavia before being broken up in 1992
But no one uses “Yugoslavian citizen of Croatia” to make the point that they are an ethnic Serb living in Croatia. To do so would mean that they cannot incorporate the actual partition of the country into their worldview, and imagine that they are living in the past, in a pre-Yugoslavian break-up. Those people would be mocked as unable to deal with the dissonance of their current situation to their preferred reality.
Roughly 9% of Montenegro is Bosniak and they refer to themselves as Montenegrin or Montenegrin Bosniaks. Should they call themselves “Yugoslavian citizens of Montenegro,” people might wonder if they were rebels looking to wage war against the current government or mentally unstable.
That is exactly what anti-Israel jihadists have chosen to do, calling Israeli Arabs “Palestinian citizens of Israel.”
Before Israel declared itself a state in May 1948, there were Palestinian Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bedouins and Druze. But after the armies of the neighboring Muslim countries came to pitch battle with the local Muslim Arabs to destroy Israel, the region of Palestine ceased to exist, and became Egyptian-controlled Gaza, Jordanian-annexed West Bank, and the State of Israel. Those were the 1949 Armistice Lines until the Muslim countries waged war against Israel again in June 1967 and lost those regions.
1949 Armistice Lines with Egyptian-controlled Gaza and Jordan’s illegally annexed western bank of the Jordan River
People who discuss an “Ongoing Nakba” like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) think of the 1948-9 war to destroy Israel as an ongoing project. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas calls all of Israel a “painful settlement,” an affront to Muslim-superiority. Tlaib and Abbas want Israeli Arabs to not give any legitimacy to the Jewish State, and to time travel to 1947 when the region of Palestine still existed.
Israeli Arabs aren’t interested.
According to a 2019 Israel Democracy Institute survey, over three-quarters of Israeli Arabs think of themselves primarily as Arab or Muslim, with a nationality of “Palestinian” (13%) and “Israeli” (10%) far behind, and almost indistinguishable.
Muslim women ready to enter the Kotel / Western Wall Plaza (photo: First One Through)
Anti-Israel troublemakers from around the world continue to deny the reality of a thriving State of Israel and use language of “Palestinian citizen of Israel” that imagines that Palestine was once a country, only consisted of Muslim Arabs and still exists underneath the racist veneer of a Jewish State. Such language is not only wildly delusional but a rejection of peaceful coexistence.
