But we are 18 months of slaughter on now, and I have come to
admit that this is different. It’s partly the scale, partly the open avowal of
ethnic cleansing by some Israeli ministers, and partly the lies which it seems
to me quite clear that the Israelis want the world to believe. Il Rettore also gave
me a book, Faith in the Face of Empire by Palestinian theologian Mitri Raheb.
This examines the interesting question of why God chose to be incarnate in this
part of the world when he could have picked anywhere; its answer is the geopolitical
position of the Holy Land on the contested border of great empires, in the past
as much as now. This is the right location for God to critique human lusts and
insecurities and offer an alternative to them, Kingdom against Empire, Cross
against sword. The Word didn't become incarnate in Judaea because that’s where the
chosen people were, but the Israelites became the chosen people because they
inhabited the land where the Word would become incarnate. So perhaps this
conflict does have cosmic significance in a way others do not.
I mention lies. There are few nations and governments which
always tell the truth, but few whose falsehoods extend to their military killing
aid workers and burying not just their bodies but the vehicle they were
travelling in and then maintaining an entirely false account of events until caught
in the lie. It is very clear the statements the Israelis give are untrue, and if I
were responsible for policy at an august news organisation such as the BBC I
would have begun treating them as such, in the same way that we quite reasonably
gave up routinely asking the Russians to comment on the war in Ukraine. In both
cases, you occasionally need to be reminded of the argument, and whether people
do themselves believe the lies they tell is an interesting and useful question
to consider. I think the Israelis probably do tell themselves that their state
is a liberal democracy the same as other liberal democracies because they had a
trans woman win Eurovision in 1998 (except those who loathe the fact). But there’s
limited value to wasting your time on untruths. Remember how long it took the
BBC to decide that it didn’t actually have to have a climate change denier on
every time the issue got mentioned.
There is a broader point here. I always approach any disagreement
(if I have my wits about me) along the
Dominican lines of identifying assumptions you have in common with your interlocutor
and proceeding from there. But there is no point rehearsing lies. You have to
distinguish the people from whom you might genuinely learn something from those
who are only trying to defeat you. Such people are not even interested in being
understood, in affecting the way you think: they would really rather you were
not there at all. There is nothing to be gained in dealing with them.
‘Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be
like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in
his own eyes’ run two adjoining verses in the Book of Proverbs. Christ negotiates
this treacherous landscape with skill. He encounters and distinguishes between those who ask him
questions in order to elicit a genuine answer, and those who ask them in order
to entrap him: the latter attacks he turns round in their own terms, exposing
the falsehood of the premises by bringing in some other idea or statement from
Scripture.
So here is a relevant question. When King David numbered the people of Israel, how did the Lord respond? He sent a plague. Where did the plague end? At the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. What did David do? He bought the threshing-floor. What did the threshing-floor become later? It became the site of the Temple. Now David was king: he could have done what he wanted. Araunah even offered him the place for free. But David insisted on buying it lawfully, so his offerings would not have cost him nothing. He did not seize it, not even from a foreigner, one of the People of the Land who the Israelites were supposed to have displaced.