To the Editor:

Joshua Muravchik criticizes Jimmy Carter’s views about the Middle East, but the fact is that no one has worked harder than Carter to bring the two sides together in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs [“Our Worst Ex-President,” February]. Other Presidents have left office and done nothing to further the prospects for peace besides accepting honoraria for defending the status quo in U.S. policy.

I understand that people are upset about Carter’s use of the word apartheid. It is a loaded term, and not all of its connotations fairly apply to Israel. But Israel and its supporters have a crucial choice to make in the coming years. All else being held equal, it will not be long before demographics make Israel itself a majority-Arab society. How will Israel respond? Can it find enough Jewish immigrants to maintain a Jewish majority? Will it make peace with the Arab world so that its democracy can continue? Will it have to resort to some form of government resembling apartheid?

We all have a stake in Middle East peace. There will be no Jewish or Arab victory, only a common victory or a common defeat. That, rather than petty accusations and character assassinations, ought to be the focus of interested observers. And that is the point of Carter’s book, if not of Mr. Muravchik’s article.

Bill Olds
Raleigh, North Carolina

_____________

To the Editor:

It is probably no exaggeration to say that Jimmy Carter would not have been accused of being “our worst ex-President” had he not discussed the Israel-Palestinian conflict in his recent book Palestine Peace not Apartheid.

What the book basically describes is the effect of Israel’s expansion into the West Bank and Gaza. The tenor of Carter’s study may be regarded as realistic or prejudiced depending on one’s point of view. But it is not surprising that the inhabitants of the disputed territories regard Israel’s expansion as an unwelcome occupation and fight against it.

It must be recognized that many Israelis in the past claimed the Jordan River as Israel’s eastern border while many of the Arab inhabitants looked to the Mediterranean as Palestine’s western border. Carter merely focused on the plight of the people in the occupied area, which explains (if not excuses) their militant activities.

Charles H. Marks
Sharon, Massachusetts

_____________

To the Editor:

Jimmy Carter is on the right side of history, and his book will one day be looked at as a courageous salvo in the war for the truth—the truth that the neoconservatives and other apologists for Israel do not want Americans to hear and understand. Thanks to the overreaction to Carter’s book, it continues to be on the New York Times bestseller list, and more and more Americans are starting to realize that Israel is a rogue nation obsessed with rewriting history at any cost to Americans.

M. Adams
New York City

_____________

To the Editor:

In his extensive critique of Jimmy Carter’s career, Joshua Muravchik makes only passing reference to the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord. That achievement, for all its flaws, is one of the best things that has happened to Israel since its creation. It deserves more than short shrift.

Also, Carter’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan may have been late and weak, but the more vigorous response of his successor probably opened the door for the Taliban’s ascent to power.

Donald Feldstein
Teaneck, New Jersey

_____________

To the Editor:

Joshua Muravchik writes that Jimmy Carter “posed for news photos hammering nails into the timbers of homes being built for the needy” by Habitat for Humanity, suggesting that this was a publicity stunt “aimed at reestablishing his credentials as a man of piety.” Although I do not agree with many of Carter’s post-presidency activities, I know from personal experience that Mr. Muravchik is off base in this regard.

I once worked with Habitat for Humanity in helping to build homes for residents of the Dakota Sioux tribe. Carter was there along with many other volunteers from around the country. Far from just “posing” with a hammer, he spent the better part of two days working on the roof of a house, hammering in wood beams and shingles. There were no photographers around to take pictures.

Scott Zacher
Chicago, Illinois

_____________

To the Editor:

Joshua Muravchik notes that Jimmy Carter uncritically cites Yasir Arafat’s claim that Zionists invented the notion that (1) Arabs wanted to throw the Jews into the sea, and (2) that this view was never advocated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This shows that Carter is as poor a historian as he is an ex-President.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the first reference to such an idea came from the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna. In 1948, the New York Times correspondent in Cairo, Dana Adams Schmidt, quoted Banna as saying: “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, [the Arabs] will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.”

The first head of the PLO, Ahmad Shukairy, also discussed the idea in his Dialogues and Secrets with Kings, written in the wake of his ouster following the Arab defeat in the 1967 Six-Day war. He wrote: “Admittedly, I frequently called on the Arabs to liquidate the state of Israel and to throw the Jews into the sea. I said this because I was—and still am—convinced that there is no solution other than the elimination of the state of Israel.” He also noted that he had consulted with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and received his approval for this position. “I do not see why I alone should be blamed,” he declared. Indeed, he alone should not have been blamed.

John C. Zimmerman
University of Nevada
Nevada, Las Vegas

_____________

To the Editor:

I would add to Joshua Muravchik’s catalogue of Jimmy Carter’s peculiar stances and reversals on racial issues a remark he made during the 1976 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Aware of a division among Democratic voters in Philadelphia over integration in public housing, Carter stated that he favored “ethnic purity.” He went on to defeat Senator Henry Jackson in the primary, and the rest is tragic history.

My one disagreement with Mr. Muravchik is that I do not view the 1978 Camp David accord between Israel and Egypt as an “achievement.” Egypt continues to prepare its people for war against Israel through constant Judeophobic propaganda in the press and in its mosques. Egypt allows weapons to be smuggled across its borders to terrorist factions in Gaza. Israel’s relationship with Egypt seems more like a cold war than a cold peace.

Elliott A. Green
Jerusalem, Israel

_____________

To the Editor:

Contrary to Joshua Muravchik, I doubt that Jimmy Carter’s attitude toward Jews owes much to “pre-Vatican II” Catholic thinking. I grew up in the South, and unless Carter’s native Plains, Georgia is an exception, a small Southern town does not get much exposure to Catholic thinking, old or new.

The roots probably lie in the same Southern enmity that led to the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, the Jewish manager of a pencil factory in Atlanta. In some quarters of the South, Jews were seen as outsiders with a knack for getting what they wanted at the expense of others. This is essentially what Carter accuses them of today. It is quite likely that his poorly concealed enmity toward Americans in general after the 1980 election became particularly fixated on Jews. Blaming the Jews for personal misfortune is an ancient sickness.

Michael W. Perry
Seattle, Washington

_____________

To the Editor:

In considering the origins of Jimmy Carter’s antipathy toward Jews, Joshua Muravchik might have mentioned Carter’s mother. She stated publicly that she grew up as a reader of Tom Watson’s magazine, The Jeffersonian. This publication fanned the flames of anti-Semitism in the South, and, among other things, was responsible for urging Georgians to take “justice” into their own hands in the Leo Frank case.

David S. Levine
Hobe Sound, Florida

_____________

To the Editor:

In Joshua Muravchik’s otherwise superb review of Jimmy Carter’s exploits, he writes that “some of the [Carter] center’s activity has been non-controversial—like its missions, usually led by Carter in person, to monitor elections in countries where democracy is not yet firm.”

Could Mr. Muravchik be unaware of Carter’s outrageous blessing of Hugo Chavez’s manipulation of the 2004 recall vote in Venezuela? Exit polls showed voters favoring Chavez’s recall from the presidency by a 59-to-41 margin, while the Chavez machine produced the opposite result, a 58-percent rejection of the recall. No audit was permitted of the software used by the electronic voting machines. The final totals were computed centrally at a location where only cursory observation was allowed. Fewer than 1 percent of the ballot boxes were audited, and no independent confirmation of the total count was possible. Yet Carter and his team of observers found nothing to criticize.

Richard Marliave
Oakland, California

_____________

To the Editor:

I must take issue with Joshua Muravchik’s characterization of Jimmy Carter as our worst ex-President. John Tyler, after his presidency, participated in the provisional Confederate congress and won election to the Confederate house of representatives (although he died before he could take his seat). I would think that joining in organized high treason gives Tyler the award as worst ex-President. Carter has not committed treason, at least not in the legal sense and perhaps not even in his heart. If Mr. Muravchik wanted to nominate him as our second-worst ex-President, I would second the motion. No one else is even close.

Alex Bensky
Detroit, Michigan

_____________

To the Editor:

Joshua Muravchik writes that in 1976 Jimmy Carter “distanced himself from the passel of doves—Congressman Morris Udall, Senator Frank Church, former New York Mayor John Lindsay, among others—competing for the mantle of George McGovern.”

John Lindsay was certainly a dove by 1976. And he was no longer a Republican, having ditched his affiliation with the party to run for President in 1972. But he most certainly was not running in the primary season in 1976. Safely ensconced at his law firm, he would return again as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1980 but never again for the Oval Office. His quixotic 1972 presidential run was his only bid for executive power.

Leonard Benardo
Brooklyn, New York

_____________

Joshua Muravchik writes:

I wonder if Bill Olds, Charles H. Marks, or M. Adams has read Jimmy Carter’s book. There is no evidence of it in their letters. The issue is not that Carter criticizes Israeli policy but that he lies about the Israel-Palestinian situation again and again. I have documented some of these lies, as have other critics, and to my knowledge there has been no rejoinder to any of these specific points by Carter himself or by anyone associated with him. Carter also exhibits visceral hatred for Israel to the point of endorsing Arab terrorism (which he now says he regrets having done), as well as dislike for Jews in general.

Bill Olds decries “petty accusations and character assassinations” at the same time that he wants to whitewash Carter’s book. But the book itself consists largely of petty accusations and character assassinations. Mr. Olds cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Marks doubts that I would have judged Carter our worst ex-President were it not for his recent book. Well, Carter’s vile diatribe is surely a legitimate basis on which to judge him. But I also rank him among our worst Presidents on the grounds of his record in the cold war, even though I do not judge harshly his actions in the Middle East while in office.

M. Adams apparently hates Israel and Jews even more than Jimmy Carter does. No wonder he or she conceals his or her identity.

I agree more with Donald Feldstein than with Elliott A. Green that the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was an important step toward the eventual acceptance of Israel by its neighbors, even though Egypt’s fulfillment of the treaty has been disappointing. But I do not believe that Carter deserves more than secondary credit for it. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin made critical and courageous decisions. Carter was merely a facilitator.

Mr. Feldstein’s comment about Afghanistan, on the other hand, leaves me astonished. It may be true that our victory over Soviet Communism contributed to the rise of radical Islamism, just as our victory over Nazism led to the rise of the Soviet empire. That scarcely leads me to regret either of those victories.

Michael W. Perry catches me in too casual a reference. I did not mean to suggest that Carter’s feelings about Jews owe anything to Catholicism, since he is far from being a Catholic. I meant to allude to an old tradition of Christian anti-Semitism that has been acknowledged and repudiated by various Christian denominations, most notably by the Catholic Church in Vatican II.

I thank Scott Zacher, John C. Zimmerman, David S. Levine, Richard Marliave, Alex Bensky, Leonard Benardo and Elliott A. Green (on the point about “ethnic purity”) for their useful corrections and additions.