Boy, it seems impossible to read Carter's s book without stumbling, willy-nilly, upon some distorion, revision of history, absence of facts, ignoring documented events, all of which makes me feel almost sorry for the old fogey. He is, I suppose, full of good intentions (and we know where those lead to, don't we?). Either he was writing his book in a state of confusion between reality and his own emotions, or someone else was dictating it to him. I think it kinder to assume the first. However, I agree with the author of this article that "Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace." Nor should he get a free pass from harsh criticism over his religious pontification to Israel as to how its citizens should be Jewish. His own description of his reaction to the secular lifestyle he encountered in Israel in his first visit there in 1973 affords the reader an unpleasant jolt at how his mind works when it comes to Israel and Jews.

In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.

Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.

And more of the same, here:

Like the most radical Palestinians, Carter implies the creation of Israel itself was a sin. He says the “taking of land had been ordained by the international community” in the UN partition resolution. This is a gross misinterpretation of history, which ignores the fact that the Zionists purchased land from the Arabs and that the UN also called for the establishment of an Arab state. Had the Arabs not rejected compromise and tried to destroy Israel, the Palestinian state Carter favors would now be celebrating its 60th anniversary. Elsewhere in the book, Carter takes UN decisions as the final word on international law (which they are not), but suggests the resolution creating Israel was the one unjust and invalid decision.