Jesus says twice they are not Jews. I don't know why it's so hard for followers of Jesus to hear Jesus say they are not Jews and to tell him they are Jews. Too much Scofield interpretation going on, methinks, self-deprecating.

I thought of a new one BTW. The fact is that nobody in that century would take "satanic synagogue" as meaning all synagogues were satanic. The fact is that synagogues meant culturally acceptable religiosity anywhere the word was used and rarely had a negative overtone. Logically, by saying "satanic synagogue" Jesus is saying that it's a totally new kind of synagogue, not something that already existed. It's unlike the acceptable ones and is evil in its origin and practice (unlike the understanding about the thousands of others at the time). He explains the reason is that, unlike what would have to be called "traditional synagogues" by contrast, this synagogue was not composed of Jews but of Gentiles who lie that they are Jews. The only reason people read Jesus as saying the opposite of what he said is not listening to his words as they would be understood by his primary audience. Denial of the Shepherd.

Anyway, this is suitable for another thread, even the one I linked. It's a simple matter to trace how the false application of Jesus's words began recently among collectivists. If you wish to defend what I see to be false with your facts and logic, I just complimented you for your handling of similar things including your handling on this thread, so I think we can make headway.

To OP obviously (I just said) Deut. 28 shows that any "Zionism" should admit both the positive and the negative promises to Israel, just like we admit positive and/or negative promises to many other nations in Scripture, notably Egypt and Syria. So it's a good point if it's not taken into collectivism. Some Zionists are big cherry-pickers about promises.