My reaction to your original piece on Jimmy Carter tearing up over the Anwar Sadat anecdote was: "This is nothing to do with Carter feeling responsible for Sadat's assassination and wanting to rectify that. This is a pure and simple emotional response to Sadat's death — perhaps delayed, and certainly not planned."

The book is indeed dry, passionless and technical (albeit readable). Because of all the hysteria accompanying its publication, one gets the impression that the book is an opinion piece. But it is actually a history of the negotiations and agreements reached. I found that Carter expressed no moral opinions. His only interest was that the agreements be implemented, that peace be brought to both populations, that the US get off the line-of-fire and resume its rightful place & credibility in the world of nations. Carter did allude to the material risk the US is courting by overtly siding with one of the combatants in the ME.

I think that Carter is eminently credentialed, the indispensable person to write the history of the ME peace negotiations. He was involved from the time of Golda Meir forward, he made it his business to know the players intimately, he worked hard on shepherding the process to closure. I believe the only 'spiritual' aspect to Carter's involvement is his connection to 'The Holy Land' through his Baptist fundamentalist faith. He mentioned this very early on in the book, that he accepted Golda Meir's invitation to visit Israel in part because of a passion 'to walk where Jesus walked'. And my opinion is that is exactly what kept him going all these years. Wouldn't it be wonderful if it was resolved before he passes –

This man's articles in WorldNetDaily and Yediot on Arab affairs are invariably based on fabricated interviews with nonexistent sources, who obligingly provide pseudo factoids supporting the Likud terror line. The fact that he is never called on these transparent exercises in black propaganda says much about the overall supervision of American-Jewish-Israeli journalism.

Wouldn't he, and therefore his ideas (which are really the point) be much more assailable if he were more passionate/emotional? Or is your criticism of him directed to his person, rather than to how he has chosen to conduct himself in public vis a vis this issue? (Granted, the right wing can make hay out of anything, as the past years have shown, but I think an emotional Carter would be getting a much worse drubbing than the dry ex-pres.)

Thanks for your terrific site. Must go find the Clinton speech.

I know Foxman and other knee-jerk critics of criticism of Israel have attacked him for using the term "apartheid." And some scholars and others have harshly criticised some of his facts and omissions. And yes, Carter Center board members were so upset they resigned…

I think his critics have over-reacted. In fact, I think they have made themselves look rather silly. But his book is a bestseller. He's been on Fox TV and Rush Limbaugh has gone after him. There may be forces out there that don't want his arguments aired, but apparently they have not been powerful enough to suppress him or to stop decidely right wing media from using his book to boost ratings. There seems to be a widespread assumption that there is a cabal out there that is bound and determined to "suppress" him. I think there are people out there who are passionately arguing with him, and that's quite different.

What's so brave and valiant about writing a book with a deliberately provocative title that he (and his publisher) knew would spark controversy? For one thing, every argument made in that book has been in the public arena –including academic discourse and blogoshere–for years. And guess what? So was every argument made by Walt and Mearsheimer. You're giving your perceived "enemies" credit for much more power than they possess.

I will say this, Carter would shut his critics up if he would put his money where his mouth is and debate Dershowitz.

Just to be clear, I am not saying this current attack on Carter is fraudulent, but I am saying his supposed interviews with Arab guerrillas are fraudulent.

You can find a whole archive full of them at WND, so, see for yourselves.

I would suggest we see Dershowitz put HIS mouth where his money is and debate Finkelstein, who proved he is nothing but a shameless propagandist and plagiarist who dared use whole portions of the long discredited book by Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial", a notorious case of intellectual fraud, while writing the "Case for Israel".

You gotta love those "moderates" who like a guy like Dershowitz for the defense of Israel. It seems Israel and her apologists are indeed in deep trouble if they really need the guy who helped acquit O.J.!!!