Posted on 02/04/2011 5:04:02 AM PST by Kaslin
In a suit filed in federal court in New York, former president Jimmy Carter, along with his publisher, Simon & Schuster, is being sued by five readers of his 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." The suit alleges that the defendants violated New York's consumer protection laws by committing "deceptive acts in the conduct of business, trade, or commerce."
The plaintiffs, who hope to be considered a class, were "members of the reading public who thought they could trust a former president of the United States and a well-established book publisher to tell the truth..."
Does Carter deserve this trouble? Oh, yes, he deeply, richly deserves it. Should the suit prevail? More on that in a moment.
Carter has preened that "my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents." Considering that he had four years as leader of the free world, the post-presidency claim sounds more like a bleat than a boast. And even still, it's false.
In fact, no former president including Richard Nixon has behaved as dishonorably as Carter. His post-presidency has been marked by truckling to America's enemies (North Korea, Syria, the PLO, Nicaragua) and actively impeding U.S. foreign policies of which he disapproved. Before the first Gulf War, for example, when President George H. W. Bush was attempting to assemble an international coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council urging members not to cooperate with the U.S.
Carter's apologies for the United States make Obama's seem chauvinistic. Meeting with Haiti's dictator Raoul Cedras, Carter allowed as how he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country." And explaining why other Americans took a skeptical view of Syria's Hafez al-Assad and North Korea's Kim II Sung, both of whom, he wrote, "have at times been misunderstood, ridiculed, and totally condemned by the American public," Carter surmises that this is in part because "their names are foreign, not Anglo-Saxon."
And then there is Carter's festering abhorrence of the Jewish state, which reached its fullest expression in "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." The title expresses his sympathies and antipathies succinctly. It's a book about a land -- Israel -- that Carter would prefer become "Palestine." How else to interpret the latter part of the title -- "Peace Not Apartheid"? The leftist/Islamist slur against Israel is that it is a racist, apartheid state akin to South Africa and therefore lacking in legitimacy. Carter embraces this calumny.
And more. So much more. The book is a skein of falsehoods. Carter repeatedly gets history wrong -- as when he suggests that Israel attacked Jordan in the 1967 war. In fact, Israel pleaded with Jordan to remain neutral as it fought off Egypt and Syria. But Jordan elected to join the other Arab states in attempting to obliterate Israel. It lost Jerusalem and the West Bank as a consequence.
The former president surely knew, when he wrote this sentence, that it was completely untrue: "The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949-1967." In fact, no U.S. government, including Carter's, insisted on withdrawal to what Abba Eban called "Auschwitz borders."
Carter also repeatedly insinuates that U.N. Resolution 242 calls for such a withdrawal -- another lie. The resolution does speak of withdrawal, but was carefully crafted (against the objections of the Soviets) not to call for such a total pullout.
Carter writes that in the years since the Camp David accords, "The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians." Obviously, patently false. Concerning the 2000 Camp David/Taba negotiations, Carter suggests that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority rejected a compromise. But as former State Department chief negotiator Dennis Ross has countered, "Their (Israel's) government, meaning the cabinet, actually voted for it ... This is a matter of record, not a matter of interpretation." Carter's good friend Arafat walked away and started the second Intifada.
The former president's sloppiness -- or mendacity -- shows up on nearly every page of the book. He claims that an Arab document, the so-called "Prisoners Proposal," called for "a unity government with Hamas joining the PLO, the release of all political prisoners, acceptance of Israel as a neighbor within its legal borders... "
Or not. Here is Abdel Rahman Zeidan, a Palestinian minister, on the BBC: "You will not find one word in the document clearly stating the recognition of Israel as a state."
There's more. Carter's distaste not just for Israel but also for Jews is reflected in some of his anecdotes, as is his inexplicable attraction to autocrats and thugs in positions of power.
But a lawsuit is not the way to deal with this. The First Amendment trumps all. The courts cannot police books for accuracy -- not in America.
But the rest of us can.
No, he deserves to be jailed for giving “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the USA.
Indeed he does
The way to deal with this is to set the record straight, or rebutt the arguments put forward by the author. In other words, don't censor Carter. Write a better book.
First, they say he is arrogant to the point of delusion. Second, it is said that, despite his somewhat meek and mild appearance, he is a deeply angry man (and deeply anti-Semitic).
There are Georgia Freepers who have a much better understanding of Carter than I do (my opinions are based on second hand stories)...I hope they will chime in on this thread and correct my impression if it is incorrect.
I’m no fan of Jimmy Carter. I think he’s a bitter old fool who never got over the ass-whipping Ronald Reagan gave him in 1980. I think he’s dangerous in some of his free-lance diplomacy. However, this case should be thrown out of court. It is a very, very dangerous precedent. People write all kinds of outrageous things in books. Unless Carter libeled a specific person—and that is a pretty high standard—he should not be sued even for lying at a general level about the so-called “Peace Process.” This will open up a Pandora’s Box of lawsuits against a lot of authors if it goes forward.
Ms. Lillian needs to be sued for giving birth to the peanut man.
Great post in a very good thread. Thanks to all posters.
“he is a deeply angry man”
You’d probably be angry too if you thought so highly of yourself and realized the rest of the country thought you were the worst president in memory. Now that Carter is about to lose his worst president ranking to an even worse president, perhaps he’ll mellow out. But I’m not holding my breath.
These folks expected Jimmay to get it right? LOL. They knew who Jimmay was before they bought the book, right?
Yes. Sue the liar.
Carter appointment one of his best buds, Bert (my wife has a million dollars from my bank in our closet) Lance, as our cherished country’s freak’in OMB. That was all I needed to know about Carter. Everything else fits the broader pattern of someone who never should have been allowed near any office of real power or influnece.
Rabbits Rule!
Yes it is time for virulent anti-semitism of Jimmah Carter to be held to account.
His hatred for Israel is now out in the open for all to see.
Sorry, but I have to side with Carter on this one based on a lack of legal standing. I simply don't accept that five people actually read his book.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Doesnt sound like there is any evidence that the plaintiffs relied on Carter’s representations and as a result suffered an injury of some kind. I’m not a lawyer but I’ll go out on a limb here anyway and predict that the lawsuit will be thrown out.
Keep On Truckling!
LLS
Rhetorical Question, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.