Citing Martin Kramer’s essay in Mosaic on the history of the Balfour Declaration, Gil Troy admits the historical importance of the document whose anniversary was celebrated yesterday. But he cautions his fellow Zionists against overselling its significance:

The Jews’ legitimacy as a nation doesn’t depend on one Balfour declaration from 1917—or many of them [as Kramer shows there were]. Jews didn’t need an international permission slip: not in 1917 or even in 1947 from the United Nations, and certainly not today. Such affirmations are welcome. They should help legitimize Zionism. But these documents are window dressing.

No such papers compare with the Bible. They don’t rank with 3,500 years of Jewish ties to the land, which make Jews, as the human-rights activist Irwin Cotler [puts it], the original aboriginal people, still reading the same Bible, speaking the same language, continuing the same culture, on the same land. . . .

I am touchy on this point because our enemies are using the Balfour centennial to reduce the Zionist claims to these 67 words of diplo-speak rather than 3,500 years of nationhood. . . . [D]id Great Britain or the United States need some Balfour-type permit? Like most countries, in the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence these nations seized the moment, emerging proudly, unilaterally, without anyone’s permission—simply asserting their national identities and resulting rights. . . .

Jews don’t need a Balfour green-light when authorities in Abu Dhabi won’t play Israel’s anthem [at an international Judo tournament]. The Israeli champion Tal Flicker started singing “Hatikvah” anyway, without anyone’s permission.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.