A Nice destruction of the Jewish state.

Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (credit: Gresham College)

Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (credit: Gresham College)

On Wednesday I went to the legal heart of London to hear a talk given by Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. The talk Gaza-Israel: The Legal Military View was at Gresham College.

It was due to start at 6pm but I arrived at 5.50pm and by then every seat was taken including those in the overflow room. Latecomers were turned away with a copy of the talk, all 22 pages, Professor Nice  was about to deliver.

On the tube home I read the Professor’s fantasyland; let’s call it Niceland.

In Niceland everyone is nice, except all Israelis (P.17):

“Widespread discrimination against the Arabs in Israel is revealed by Rabbis, Israeli politicians and pro-Zionist activists. Such unsanctioned/uncontrolled racism and religious intolerance creates an environment that can encourage sectarian violence as well as inspire ‘morale’ of IDF soldiers during military campaigns such as Protective Edge.”

Nice quotes Major General Giora Eiland who, apparently, compared the Palestinians who voted for Hamas to the Germans who voted for Hitler and then Nice continues:

“…these extreme views are widely shared by the defence establishment and by the Israeli public at large”.

But in Niceland Hamas are nice. In Niceland Hamas doesn’t really wish to put Palestinian civilians in danger or use them as human shields. It’s just that they have no choice because Gaza is so small (Page 13):

“…in Gaza, the whole area is a battle zone. In these circumstances, where this is so little tactical depth, the mixing of civilians and fighters means that it is almost impossible for Hamas not to appear to use civilians as a shield.”

Meanwhile, Google’s satellite map shows vast empty spaces in Gaza where Hamas could have taken on the IDF. That’s if Hamas were brave enough.

And in Niceland history can be whatever you want it to be (P. 3):

“Israel as a state was thus imposed on and within Palestine in 1948…an as yet unfinished state project because the territorial ambitions of Israel were not satisfied. Thereafter, claiming to fight for the security of their people and preservation of their land, Israel fought their Arab neighbours, expanding Israel’s borders.”

And in Niceland those fantastical disappearing maps of Palestine used by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign are accurate (P. 5).

And in Niceland Israel never handed back the Sinai and made peace with Jordan (P.6):

“The 1967 war encouraged a revival of the “Greater Israel”, envisaged by the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, as extending “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates””. 

In Niceland (P.7) Israeli government policy is “the accelerated Judaization of East Jerusalem“.

In Niceland (P.8) 83% of Gaza’s casualties during Operation Cast Lead were civilians. (B’Tselem puts that figure nearer to 55% while the IDF claims 60% were terrorists)

In Niceland (P.9)  “The Israeli authorities knew that the teenagers were killed soon after their abduction but they did not announce the death (sic) until eighteen days later.” So in Niceland there was no possibility last year that those three abducted Israeli teenagers may have been still alive after those shots, which were only heard down a mobile phone, were fired.

In Niceland (P.10) when Israel searched for those Israeli teenagers and “350 Palestinians were arrested…Reluctantly rising up to the challenge, Hamas responded with rockets.”

In Niceland (P.13) “there is no credible tactical, territorial military threat to Israel from Gaza”.

In Niceland (P.12) Sderot is merely a “settlement” which “shows that the Government encourages its people to live under the threat of rockets”.

In Niceland (P.12) “the population density of Gaza City is rated as the fifth highest in the world“. In Wikipedia Gaza City doesn’t even appear in the top 38.

At a war crimes trial in Niceland (P.19) Hamas could defend itself by arguing it fired inaccurate rockets because Gaza is “an imprisoned state/entity…there is other way to defend and advance its citizens’ interest”.

And, finally, in Niceland there’s no Jewish state at all (P.20):

“Should all the walls…be dismantled and the entire land of Palestine administered by outsiders until a single state of equal citizens can exist on the basis that there may yet be scope for true democracy of those peoples in a land they all claim to call home?”

Here is the talk for you to peruse in your own time.

You can complain to the provost of Gresham that such anti-Israel propaganda has no place at Gresham College. His name is Sir Richard Evans rje36@cam.ac.uk

Or you can go straight to the author himself geoffreynice@hotmail.com and enquiries@gresham.ac.uk

Alternatively you can politely protest such discourse when Professor Nice gives his next lecture which is on November 4th at Gresham College and which will be discussing the Mavi Marmara: Does The Citizen Have The Right To Protest On The High Seas?

It is at 6pm but to be sure of getting a seat you need to be in the queue by 5pm!

14 responses to “A Nice destruction of the Jewish state.

  1. Of course the fact that Nice is retained to prosecute Israel at the ICC does not detract one iota from his objectivity ….

  2. starofdavidscotland

    To Geoff:
    Your facts are about as (in)accurate as Ilan Pappe’s, at least he’s accurately named!

    You’ll know Ilan of course. He’s the ‘historian’ who quite readily admits he makes things up to suit his vicious racist fanatical farcical jewhate agenda.

    Makes you look like the lying fascist Pallywood bien pensant lackie you truly are.

    What a revisionist piece of utter garbage you dredge up. Der Sturmer the KKK and David Irvine would be happy regurgitation your bile of compete drivel. Devoid of truth facts and honesty. So many lies told by so little to so few.

    Truly a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

  3. You know who Richard Evans is, of course. He was defence counsel in the matter of Irving v Lipstadt. He was responsible for destroying Irving’s claim to be a historian. He has also written a wonderful book In Defence of History, attacking post modernist historians who maintain that there is no such thing as objective history, only competing narratives. Despite this irony, I doubt Evans will be receptive to any representations to silence any particular speaker.

  4. If Sderot is a “settlement” and rockets have a rqnge of 100 km, pretty much all of Israel is a “settlement”. Fall under “denying Jews the right to their country” part of the definition of antisemitism. It’s racist to be Nice.

  5. This lying sack of shit occupies the professorial chair that was formerly held by Baroness Ruth Deech. Talk about from the sublime to the ridiculous…

  6. Nowhere does Nice ‘declare his interest’ — that he earns fees by representing the traducers of Israel at the International Criminal Court. Not on the Gresham website nor in his diatribe.

    That is plain wrong.

  7. Nice has the right to his own opinions. What he does not have is the right to his own facts.

  8. Any whipper snapper can say any crap on this topic.The only thing that matters is what happens in situ and that dépends on good for nothing Netanyahu. With such a PM Israel can hardly hope to prevail.

  9. The only way to stop this deluge of lies and pressures of all kinds is to expel arabs fromWestern Palestine. Then rthe pressures will ,stop since there will not be any hope to replace the jewish population with an arab population. However to do this it takes a PM with GUTS and Netanyahu has none, henis only a BLABBER MASTER.

  10. Brian Goldfarb

    Slight correction to Amie: if it’s the same Richard Evans, he was the of the research team that gave Anthony Julius the evidence he needed to destroy any claim that Irving had to be credible. He isn’t a lawyer but a historian.

    Further on in her comment, Amie writes that “I doubt Evans will be receptive to any representations to silence any particular speaker.” There is a serious argument as to whether he should be prepared to silence any speaker. But, as an academic (and administrator), he should certainly be in a position to demand that any speaker given a platform should be prepared to have have any “facts” challenged by competent others. If they are not so prepared to be challenged, _then_ a case can be made for silencing them: but the watchword should always be in the context of civil debate.

  11. It is the Sir Richard Evans of the failed Irving libel case. He is a historian and I think his status in court would have been ‘expert witness’.

    Maybe the status of Gresham College is a factor in this shock. And I believe that military historians are rather different from the academic kind.

    The ICC aspect is just awful. I’ve heard Irving described as a good military historian despite his horrible politics. Horrible politics is certainly what Nice has shown here.

  12. Brian Goldfarb is right. A polemic tirade against Israel suppresses free speech unless someone is given the right of response. With equal time to Nice. This is all about allowing free speech to someone to rebut Nice’s lies. Surely Richard Evans can see that.

  13. I welcome Robert Davis to this page, who seems like a total nutter. You have come to the right place.

    Are you by chance an old school friend of mine?