One of my commenters has recently accused me of being mentally ill or a liar for believing that former president Jimmy Carter's current book reveals a deep seated anti-Semitism. I disagree with that contention (as do the voices in my head).

However, in the interest of fairness, I believe I should at least post something taking the contrary position -- especially since a wonderfully written and reasoned piece by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach appeared in today's Jerusalem Post arguing that Carter is not, in fact, an anti-Semite. Rather, the book reveals a different problem with Carter's world-view..

But with the publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, [Carter's] ignorant rant against Israel, many in the American Jewish community believe that Carter is not just a loser but an anti-Semite. I disagree.

Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding.

Carter wants to do what's just. His heart's in the right place. He just can't figure out what the right is. He is, and always has been, a man of good intentions bereft of good judgment. He invariably finds himself defending tyrants and dictators at the expense of their oppressed peoples. Not because he is a bad man, but because he is a confused man.

Aonfused? How so? After all, Carter is often presented as one as the major do-gooders out there, a man with a deep sense of right and wrong. Indeed, many folks have argued that Carter is what our greatest elder statesman. How, then is Carter confused? Quite bluntly, it is a confusion based in a fundamentally flawed view of right and wrong.

CARTER SUBSCRIBES to what I call the Always Root for the Underdog school of morality. Rather than develop any real understanding of a conflict, immediately he sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral.

Israel has tanks and F-16's. The Palestinians don't. Therefore the Palestinians are being oppressed. Never mind that the Palestinians have rejected every offer to live side by side with Israel in peace and elected a government pledged to Israel's annihilation. Their poverty dictates the righteousness of their cause even if their actions speak otherwise.

That makes a certain sense. Cuba is weaker than the US -- therefore Castro is a good guy. North Korea is weaker than the US and South Korea -- therefore Kim Jong-Il is not a dictator and is fully justified in seeking nuclear power and weapons while his people starve. Hugo Chavez is supported by the poor of Venezuela, and he is therefore not a bad guy despite his anti-Americanism and evidence of vote fraud int he election Carter certified. Indeed, it even explains why Carter undercut the Shah of Iran and was rendered impotent in the face of the taking of American hostages in Iran -- as a US ally, the Shah was the obvious villain in Iran and Khomeni was a force for good, and any significant action against Iran would have been evil because of the power differential between the US and the Iranians, no matter how grave the provocation. And that confused moral calculus does clearly explain why Israeli self-defense against Palestinian terrorism constitutes a moral evil (greater even than the Rwandan genocide) in Carter's eyes.

Which, of course, absolves Carter of the charge of anti-Semitism in Boteach's book.

No, Carter is not anti-Semitic so much as a man whose lack of judgment and shallowness render him absolutely incapable of telling right from wrong.

Carter's obscene comparison of Israel with apartheid South Africa ignores the fact that Israel is the first country to airlift tens of thousands of black Africans to become free and full citizens in its borders, a phenomenon that has no precedent in the history of the world.

But by saying that the Palestinians are being subjected to apartheid Carter has grossly maligned not Jews, but black South Africans. Whereas black South Africans inspired the world with their humane capacity for forgiveness and peaceful coexistence with their white brethren, even after having been so egregiously wronged, the Palestinians have unfortunately embraced murderous hatred and racism. Arab newspapers routinely publish grotesque caricatures of Jews, and the Palestinians teach kindergarten children to grow up and blow up Israeli buses.

Nelson Mandela rose to become the world's greatest statesman with his articulation of brotherhood and reconciliation. But Yasser Arafat fathered international terrorism and stole hundreds of millions of dollars from his own people.

Which leads to one conclusion: Before one runs around the world as a global do-gooder, one should first develop the ability to identify the good.

In other words, Carter's moral compass is broken, and his words and actions must therefore be understood in light of that character flaw.

So I'll concede that the good rabbi may have a point -- Jimmy Carter does not have Jew-hatred in his heart, but has simply lost his ability to distinguish good from evil (if he ever had it). But given that his current book, recent column, and other statements echo the statements of Jew-haters over the centuries, the argument can still be made that even if he is not motivated by animus towards Jews, his recent activities have been functionally anti-Semitic. So while my criticism of the man may be seen as unfair by some, I stand by my criticism of his position -- and ask if the difference is one that really makes any difference.