The Prophet Carter

Octogenarian Jimmy Carter was given a lovely long spot on Today, with James Naughtie questioning him deferentially about his particular version of the Israeli Palestinian situation and his support for the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN security Council.

They both forgot to mention the Palestinians’ continual refusal to recognise Israel or to renounce violence, and Jimmy Carter made, at length, a number of factually incorrect statements about settlements and various other things.

His prediction that a bid would succeed at the General Assembly, if not at the UN Security Council, was announced as if it was a great insight on his behalf. Perhaps he didn’t hear Jeremy Bowen stating something which we all know, namely that there’s “a built-in pro Palestinian majority, and no veto, at the General Assembly.”

Some of his remarks indicate that he thinks Palestine is already an independent state, so why does the BBC bother to broadcast his bonkers views on the forthcoming Palestinian bid for statehood?

Update. Melanie Phillips is wondering if the British government is about to vote for a Palestinian state.

Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The Prophet Carter

  1. John Anderson says:

    Jimmy Carter is so dumb even the US liberal networks don’t bother to interview him.

    So it is natural for the BBC to treat the old loon with unctious respect.


  2. noggin says:

    doesn t anyone remember the old peanut farmers monumental  
    f–k ups re. the olso-accords.  
    Thats all we need a master of disaster giving his nuckin futz  
    “mis-underestimating” of the situation.  
    but then again a perfect el beeb foil


  3. Abandon Ship! says:

    What a mixed up peanut farmer we have here. Surely he isn’t taken seriously by anyone (excepting Beeboid world) ?

    Meanwhile, and unrelated, a great post by the Dumb One:


  4. AndyUk06 says:

    In addition to the hate-mongers at the General Assembly, it’s as well to remember that Islamist extremists marked the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 outrage by burning the Stars & Stripes outside the US Embassy in London.

    This same same group publically burnt a poppy on Remembrance Day, exercising a freedom of expression not readily evident under Sharia. These infantile hate-mongers have sympathisers at the BBC, but not amongst real people. 

    Given that these are the type of people we are dealing with and given the rapidly dissolving spines of Cameron and his cohorts, there would have to be an absolute assurance that such a state would be castrated militarily.  Such a state would be more feasible if Islamic extremists were to confine their activities to Palestinian areas, but everyone knows they don’t.

    I guess if they did have their own state, at least there would be a specific nation to attack, should they decide to start up trouble.  They could then go in and obliterate any remnants of terrorism with whatever force is necessary. And while we’re at it, take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Israel did this successfully with Iraq, so there’s no reason they couldn’t achieve the same thing again.

    But making concession to Arabs in the past has never worked, so why start again?


    • Chris says:

      You would think that this country, of all places, would understand the problems with paying danegelds.


      • noggin says:

        “The Prime Minister should be asked in the House of Commons just why the British government is so gung-ho for a racist Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of Jews, led by a Holocaust-denier and committed to the destruction of the Jews’ national homeland – and why it is even considering endorsing the repudiation of international law to bring it about.”

        nuff said


  5. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Carter wanted a two-state solution 30 years ago.  It’s not news that he supports it now.  What I object to is him saying that only the Israelis have not kept the terms of any agreement.  “Palestinians have suffered grave consequences” since then, but no mention of Arafat walking away a few years ago, no mention of anything that might portray the Palestinians as anything other than innocent lambs.  And no mention of the UN’s complicity in creating the Palestinian death cult, where UN-controlled schools teach children to stop worrying and love the suicide bomb.  
    And Naughtie didn’t bring any of that up either.  Carter agrees with the vague land-swap notion that Israel needs a little more breathing room than the 1967 borders would allow, but maintains the charade that any eventual Palestinian State will be a happy peaceful place, with no attempts at violence against Israel.  And Naughtie is silent.  
    Carter thought he’d sold Israel down the river 30 years ago, and now thinks he’s seeing it reach that final destination.

    But seriously, this was a policy statement posing as an interview.  Naughtie’s questions were perfunctory and enabling, as if his aim was to help Carter’s spiel along.  This isn’t news, and it isn’t an interview.  If the BBC is going to give a free platform to some talking head to espouse their views, just be honest about it and quit pretending it belongs on a news program.


    • RCE says:

      In marked contrast to the Humphreys/Blair argument… I mean, interview.


    • hippiepooter says:

      This is the BBC ouvre, practised with avengeance on TODAY; prompts for people with views you want to promote, hectoring and harrying for people whose views you wish to smother.


  6. Andrew says:

    It should prove interesting if this move to statehood goes ahead and Hamas send in more of their rockets.  It will no longer be a group firing on a state.  It would a state firing on another state, i.e. a declaration of war and all that comes with it.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Exactly, Andrew.  That’s the argument I was having over 20 years ago.  Everyone who wanted a two-state solution – especially the far-Left Jews of LA – insisted that there would be an immediate round of unicorns and rainbows instead of conflict because then the Palestinians would have something to lose if they used violence against Israel.   It was complete nonsense then, and it’s complete nonsense now.  Yet people still keep insisting it will be so.


  7. Andrew says:

    It’s a shame Carter or the BBC haven’t seen this (not that it would change anything for them)


    • hippiepooter says:

      Excellent vid.  I wonder if, in the interests of balance, TODAY will give an equally free rein to a prominent supporter of Israel like Jose María Aznar?  Let me know if you see any pigs flying.


    • Andrew says:

      Interestingly enough, this video did feature albeit briefly in last night’s 10pm news as part of Al Bowen’s palestinian statehood bid.  Unfortunately they included only about 6 seconds of it that gave the impression that Israel’s objection was akin to childish name calling and raspberry blowing.


  8. TooTrue says:

    I listened to Cameron praising the assembled Libyan throng and telling them that the whole world was inspired by their revolt. And I recall his ascerbic anti-Israel comments while on a visit to Turkey at the time tof the Mavi Marmara debacle. He was spouting the usual brain-damaged cliches about Gaza being a great prison. No doubt he saw those Turkish Islamist thugs on that ship as selfless warriors for the oppressed. I think he sees himself that way and Israel as the oppressor.

    So I reckon Britain is going to bow to the mealy-mouthed anti-Israel consensus here and vote yes.


  9. Martin says:

    I see the BBC are up in arms that their little darling (Amelia Hill of the Guardian) is in trouble with plod and that the Met are going after the Guardian using the Official Secrets Act.

    Expect the BBC to come out batting for the Groaner, it’s pay back time for the BBC.


    • RCE says:

      Rusbridger was squealing like a pig on PM. Eddie Mair actually did a ecent job and asked him why he didn’t just help the police.

      And on Toady Humphreys gave some dweeb from the BMC a bit of a roasting about why one-third of NHS doctors gained their qualifications overseas.

      Or did I dream it?


  10. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Celebrate good times:

    I realised Britain had changed profoundly

    Yes, it’s a story about a mixed-race woman who was able to transcend her personal tragedy and sense of loss once “white/African” appeared on the census form.  I’m certainly not scoffing at her pain.  But then there’s this:

    In her day job as project manager in Knowledge, Badjie has never made a programme. But she’s made enough happen to know that a season, for mainstream television, is hard to sell.

    What sold the idea to Knowledge commissioning editor Martin Davidson were the hard facts and research that showed how closely the mixed race story was linked to Britain’s past, contemporary life and future shape.

    I bet you can all see where this is going.

    Some of the stats are persuasive: Britain has the world’s fastest growing mixed race population and mixed race is the fastest growing minority group in the UK; a major Cardiff University study last year found that mixed race people are perceived as most beautiful; almost 10% of children in the UK live in a family that describes itself as mixed race.

    If further evidence of the zeitgeist were needed, mixed race studies is challenging traditional third world and black studies in US universities…and Marvel comics has just announced a mixed race spider man, Badjie observes.

    It was impossible to tell the 21st century story without ‘some solid history on how mixed race people moved from the margins to the mainstream’, she argues – hence the in-house docs Mixed Britannia, and How the World Got Mixed Up.

    It was also important to reflect the range of mixed relationships in Britain, beyond black and white, and avoid the obvious: ‘A good many proposals featuring Obama, Leona Lewis and Lewis Hamilton bit the dust,’ Badjie says, although Shirley, the Bassey biopic was a no-brainer.

    Badjie canvassed opinion across the BBC, including from naysayers in Vision who doubted mixed race would make sexy tv: ‘What I believe we’ve ended up with are great British stories – some surprising, others shocking, some inspirational, many optimistic, all thought-provoking.’

    It’s all very lovely, and nobody would deny their fellow citizens their right to feel good about themselves.  Right up until the next time the BBC starts telling you white English types that you’re no longer allowed to have the same right to feel good about your personal heritage.


    • Reed says:

      Excellent, David. This article is a perfect illustration of how some cultures/backgrounds are deemed worthy of ‘celebration’ and promotion while others are to be ignored or diminished.


  11. George R says:

    Oh no,  INBBC’s indignant, self-righteous KATTY KAY trying to impose Hamas policy on U.S.:-

    (3 min video)


    • TooTrue says:

      Dunno about Hamas, ’cause they oppose the statehood bid, but the imposition of the Palestinian perspective is of course to be expected. After all this is the BBC.

      What an uncatty, gentle interview from her royal Katness. Where were the tough questions? Why such an easy ride for Rice? Because she looks like she belongs to a minority and is in the Obama administration and is a woman? Perhaps it’s all three.