Palestinians don’t like Israelis quoting from Bible

Fascinating and revealing comments from Saeb Erekat in response to Benjamin Netanyahu’s use of Scripture to authenticate the Jewish claim on Jerusalem.

Israel Today:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat last week blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for quoting from the Bible in order to draw a connection between Jerusalem and the Jews.

In his Jerusalem Day address to the Knesset marking the 43rd anniversary of the reunification of the city under Israeli control, Netanyahu highlighted the prominent place Jerusalem holds in the Jewish Bible, where it is mentioned no fewer than 850 times (including the times the city is referred to as “Zion”).

A day later, Erekat told Reuters that he found it “distasteful, this use of religion to incite hatred and fear.”

Erekat insisted that the eastern half of Jerusalem is “an occupied Palestinian town” that must be surrendered by Israel.

The Palestinians have worked hard over the past few decades to erase the Jews’ millennia-old history in Jerusalem, including claims that there never was a Jewish temple atop the Temple Mount and that Jesus was in fact a Palestinian Arab.

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Palestinians don’t like Israelis quoting from Bible”

  1. Goy Says:

    Saeb Muhammad Salih Erekat said “distasteful, this use of religion to incite hatred and fear” as he sat studying the finer points of islamic jihad in his koran for dummies.

  2. Goy Says:

    British Consevative – Liberal Democrat government does not like the EDL quoting from the Quran.

    Today the English Defence League Website has been suspended, apparently because of an article that describes, using suras from the Quran, how Islam looks on the Kuffar (non-Muslims).

    Apparently the reason provided for this blatant act of censorship was that the article ‘contravenes UK racism laws’. If this is the case then it means one of two things, that the Quran itself contravenes UK racism laws or Islam has an exemption from UK racism laws, and is treated as a special case.

Switch to our mobile site