Jimmy Carter Sued For Allegedly Supporting Anti-Israeli Agenda In 2006 Book 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid'

The Jerusalem Post :

$5 million lawsuit against former US president alleges one of his books on Israel intended to deceive public, promote anti-Israel agenda.

Read the whole story: The Jerusalem Post

Comments

[SamSeven]

03:32 PM on 02/10/2011

Oh Please Enough! Israel has to face up to its crimes against humanity especially the politicans. Every Western nation and those Jews living in those nations are complict in Israeli crimes as the rest of the Western populations are. The West has refused to hold Israel accountable because of the guilt of WW2. Ever hear of the 12 Step Process in getting over guilt, it works. Israel has to change it's behaviour to the Palestinians one way or another or face further isolation from the world community. No amount of PR can spin that or lawsuits.

[TaxedCitizen]

12:19 PM on 02/10/2011

This will only bring more attention to the truth.

[EmmaNYC]

09:23 AM on 02/10/2011

My, my, all this todo about a lawsuit involving a not-very-interesting-or-relevant book? Anyone can sue anyone. It's America's favorite pastime. Let the courts decide whether or not the lawsuit has merit. And let's not permit a minor lawsuit to be the spark for more HP anti-semitism and anti-Israel nonsense.

[lbsaltzman]

03:03 PM on 02/10/2011

The criticism of Israel is mostly not anti-semitism. The phrase anti-Israel has no meaning. People are anti-Israeli policies against the Palestinians and Lebanese, and being against those policies happens to be good for Israel. Israel won't be secure until it abandon's the occupation and ethnic cleansing.

[Jedi18]

10:37 PM on 02/10/2011

Well said.

[messy]

05:05 PM on 02/09/2011

In the US you cannot sue someone for writing a book you don't like. If that were the case every author would be up to his/her armpits in lawsuits.

[Londoncall]

09:46 AM on 02/10/2011

For once Messy I totally agree with you. The whole thing is just silly nonsense.

[TaxedCitizen]

12:18 PM on 02/10/2011

Correct.

[Readbetweentheelevens]

03:53 PM on 02/09/2011

The suit will never go to trial because its claims are baseless. A trial would only bring attention to the truth of the matters asserted.

The Israeli brainiacs who filed this claim will not even get a trial. I hope the law they filed under has a loser pays provision, thereby requiring them to pay for President Carter's attorneys.

[StJames]

02:19 PM on 02/09/2011

I've always been a supporter of Israel....although in the past few years I've begun to think that perhaps they don't deserve such unilateral support.  This suit could have some real unintended consequences....Not to mention it has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere.

[Macready]

07:24 AM on 02/09/2011

this is utterly despicable . . Carter is our best ex-prez and the only one who has worked seriously, honestly and dililgently for peace in the Middle East . . . . his criticisms of israel are more than fair . . . but the hasbara crowd just won't stop because they are too afraid to see the end of American support for their agenda . . well . . . the US tax payers need to be informed about what kind of country israel really is and how it flouts international law, the Geneva Convention, the Oslo accord with impunity . . maybe something good will come out of this . . maybe Americans will finally wake up to what israel really is . . . at least I can hope

[cincinnati]

01:55 AM on 02/13/2011

the wicked and unfair attacks on Carter says a great deal....the cheap smears show
the arguments for Israeli continued repression are weak and they have to resort
to whatever else they can try to get away with....

[FreeAmerican7]

06:33 AM on 02/09/2011

President Carter is the ONLY US President who forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai desert of Egypt thus making himself the ENEMY to all ZIONIST Jews and their
UNDERLINGS: the Christian ZIONISTS of the USA led by many especially: Mike Huckabee!
NO wonder he is being ATTACKED for delaying the creation (VIA INVASION & OCCUPATION) of Ertz Israel (Greater Israel) located between the Euphrates (IRAQ) & the Nile rivers!

[lbsaltzman]

10:14 AM on 02/09/2011

Let us sincerely pray that Mike Huckabee is never elected President.

[EmmaNYC]

09:16 AM on 02/10/2011

Do you think using caps makes your nonsense more believable? Thank again (that is, if you can).

[jwcmass]

11:26 PM on 02/10/2011

Actually FreeAmerican, Eisenhower was the only President to FORCE Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, (and the UK and France to leave the area around the Suez Canal.) That happened during the 1956 War (a less well known war, likely because it was 100% planned and caused by those three nations).
 
Carter negotiated a PEACE AGREEMENT between Israel and Egypt (who had fought four wars -- five if you count the War of Attrition of 1969-70.)
 
Israel AGREED to withdraw from the Sinai -- it IS sovereign Egyptian soil.
 
You are right about the views of "Christian Zionists" (and I use that term in quotes because I am referring not to Christians who support Israel's existence, (and not because it fits their "end-time" scenario) and who also support the Palestinians.
 
The "Christian Zionists you are correctly talking about are evangelicals and those who support the doctrine of "dispensationalism" and Israel is (to them) just a part of the "plan'
 
They are STRONGLY opposed to the rights of Palestinians, and are opposed to a peace agreement based on a two-state solution.
 
Many also (for the same reason) favor the destruction of the Dome of the Rock and El Aqsa Mosques and rebuilding the Temple -- an act which would start a war, and would get very ugly.
 
And the fact of the matter is that Jews AND Israelis overwhelmingly are OPPOSED to such an act.
 
So these right-wing Christians are playing a DANGEROUS game.
 
(Just to illustrate how sensible most Israelis are about this, during the 1967 War, when the Old City was captured by Israel, some soldier raised an Israeli flag over the Dome of the Rock.
 
When Defense Minister Moshe Dayan saw this, he IMMEDIATELY gave orders to have the flag taken down. He wasn't a particularly religious man, but he KNEW the danger of even THIS act, and took action quickly.
 
I believe these "Christian Zionists" -- and they are a sizable number, have much more influence than AIPAC. And are a primary reason why US policy has been what it is during the last 30 years. (since Reagan was President).
 
Ironically, Jimmy Carter is an evangelical himself, but he doesn't appear to be a follower of "dispensationalism" (which is a doctrine that has only been around for about 200 years (very late in terms of a faith about 2,000 years old) and which MANY Christians DO NOT BELIEVE.
 
It's based on a very poor understanding of the Book of Revelation, but it also "ad hoc" adds certain separate passages from all over the Bible to cobble together this belief system.
 
By itself, it is not dangerous, but when politics get involved, then it can become VERY dangerous.

[lbsaltzman]

02:14 AM on 02/09/2011

The great irony is that Jimmy Carter's criticisms of Israel are rather mild. Israel's have written far tougher criticism than Carter has. Check out www.gush-shalom.org, or read Pappe. But the bottom line is that Carter had the consitutional right to say what he did. Go back and read Joan Peters From Time Immemorial a book full of completely false information. Many scholars have demolished the contents of this deceitful book, but none dreamed of suing the author.

[mulegino]

11:00 PM on 02/08/2011

Notice how the hasbarists are talking about HAVING to "reclassify" the book as "fiction" or forcing Carter to "correct" the errors?

This is a point of view that is totally alien to the American experience and to the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech and of the press is THE cornerstone and fountainhead of American liberty.

One of the reasons that, unlike the UK, the burden of proof in a libel suit is on the plaintiff, not on the defendant in the American judicial system is the absolute preeminence of the First Amendment.

If our judiciary allows it to be tampered with in any way, then farewell to all the liberties of poor America.


One of the reasons that, unlike the UK, the burden of proof in a libel suit is on the plaintiff, not on the defendant in the American judicial system is the absolute preeminence of the First Amendment.

[nkurland]

08:50 PM on 02/08/2011

Let's call this lawsuit what it is: a shameless attack on free speech.

[Counterglow]

08:51 PM on 02/08/2011

F&F.

[Macready]

07:25 AM on 02/09/2011

it sure is nkurland . . . well said

[FreeAmerican7]

08:24 PM on 02/08/2011

The Israeli-American Lawyers can do $$$better$$$ if they sue Israel's PM (Past/Present/Future) for their STATE-Sponsored GRAND TERRORISM againt all the people of the Middle-East.
After all the damage done by the tiny Fire-Cracker Hamas Rockets is MINUTE as compared to the HUGE destructive WMD (Phosphorus Bomb; etc.) used by Israel and paid for by the GULLIBLE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
To all those who believe that the lawsuit has NO Merit and a Counter lawsuit by President Carter will punish financially these Israeli-Americans suing him; NEVER FORGET that there is
NO EXTRADITION TREATY between the US and Israel and any American Financial Terrorist considers Israel to be the ULTIMATE HAVEN/REFUGE!

[EmmaNYC]

09:18 AM on 02/10/2011

Again with the capital letters - ohh, how passionate they make you, LOL. I particularly like the 'never forget' in caps.

[TaxedCitizen]

12:22 PM on 02/10/2011

USS Liberty NEVER FORGET

GTR5 dot com

[lbsaltzman]

07:46 PM on 02/08/2011

Meantime an activist with The Jewish Voice For Peace has been threatened.

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/blog/los-angeles-jewish-voice-peace-activist-targeted-home

Attacks on free speech and physical threats are becoming all to common as portions of the pro-Israel pro-occupation folks lose all perspective.

[Counterglow]

08:47 PM on 02/08/2011

People tend to forget that the current Israeli government doesn't reflect the wishes of a very large number of Israeli citizens. And the best way to be labeled an anti-Semite is to challenge that government and its rabid supporters.

[Londoncall]

07:13 AM on 02/09/2011

Indeed Counterglow, I often wonder who the more fanatic Israeli supporters on this site think they are representing.

[mulegino]

06:26 PM on 02/08/2011

This is not about "suffering" on the part of the reading public, but a vicious and malicious attempt to stifle public dissent and freedom of expression in the US.
Since Jimmy Carter is the most prominent American who has lately been critical of the criminal state, the plaintiffs and their sheysters have chosen to go after him- as a warning to those who would dare expose the "special relationship" for what it is- abusive, one sided, and injurious to both human rights and the American national interest.

[Counterglow]

08:50 PM on 02/08/2011

Are you saying that this lawsuit isn't simply about suppressing a well-reasoned, unflattering view of Israel's current government?

[mulegino]

08:58 PM on 02/08/2011

I've already shown that the lead attorney is an Israeli. What more do you want?

"Agent" comes from the Latin "agens" or "agere", i.e., to act; an agent, in the sense of a person, is someone who acts on behalf of a thing. It is not tied inextricably to either remuneration or government law enforcement or intelligence operations.
It is simply someone who acts on behalf of a cause.


It must take a wild leap of imagination to assume that the lead attorney is NOT an agent of Israel, but I do realize that it is late back at the settlement, so I'll chalk this one up to sleep deprivation or lack of good coffee or tea.

[Greta42]

09:44 PM on 02/08/2011

Fanned & faved.

[Anbreen]

03:42 PM on 02/08/2011

Unfortunately, this suit is likely to be thrown (and laughed) out of court.

However, I beg you all to please light a candle that it be HEARD in court. Those of you who are annoyed by the presumption may not be considering all of the many useful consequences.

[jwcmass]

03:53 PM on 02/08/2011

Anbreen,
 
While having an open debate on US middle east policy is a much needed thing, the court is not the venue for this.
 
If this were to get to court, Carter would incur heavy legal fees. Now he would probably win, and be able to recover those fees, but other potential targets for this kind of litigation may not be able to do so.
 
So it would have a chilling effect -- authors and publishers would want to stay away from any controversial subject which might draw a lawsuit.
 
Same with newspapers, blogs, etc. Especially those without the financial resources to handle months if not years of litigation.
 
Corporations may try this tactic to silence any possible critics. (This actually DID happen in the UK, where the libel laws are ridiculous -- and very difficult to defend against -- the burden of proof is on the defendent) -- a couple who had published flyers stating that McDonald's food was unhealthy were sued by the company, and spent years in litigation. This couple could not afford an attorney, so they had to do all the legal work themselves.
 
They actually LOST in the UK, but as the UK belongs to the EU, they took their case to the EU's version of the Supreme Court -- and there they won. Finally.
 
The plaintiffs in this case do not want a REAL debate -- they want to "censor by litigation" and they ought to be deterred for doing so.
 
Otherwise, what good is the First Amendments' protection of Free speech and Press?

[Anbreen]

04:04 PM on 02/08/2011

Excellent points (sigh!).

Thanks for bringing me back down to earth. I KNEW there was a reason why I fanned you.

[Anbreen]

08:48 PM on 02/08/2011

But.. wouldn't the losing side be charged with Carter's costs?