Friend or Foe?: Jimmy Carter's Complicated Relationship with Israel

By Randy Pinsky

 

Former US President Jimmy Carter (1924-2024) left what can only be described as a complex legacy. Statesman, peace activist, humanitarian, Carter set a critical standard for future treaties in the Middle East. 

While no one would contest his instrumental role as mediator of the acclaimed 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, many have perceived him as both seeking to resolve the conflict in the Middle East- and further instigating it. 

Peanut Farmer Turned Politician

A small businessman from Georgia, Jimmy Carter got involved in local politics to improve the lives of those impacted by the recession, gaining renown for his work with Habitat for Humanity.

As a governor with little foreign affairs experience, it surprised many when he became a contender for president and narrowly beat out Republican rival Gerald Ford in 1977. 

Carter’s Baptist background and connection with Israel as the Holy Land led to his involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. He played a central role for the American Jewish community, opposing the 1977 Arab boycott and creating a special visa category for Iranian and Soviet Jews. 

A Golden Opportunity

The 1970s was a time of turbulence and tension; the Soviet Union was allying with anti-Western Arab nationalists economically and politically, threatening to destabilize US interests. Moreover, with avowed enemies Israel and Egypt having had four major wars since 1948, many feared it could escalate into a full-scale regional conflict. 

This was the mediating opportunity Carter was waiting for. 

An Egyptian Partner for Peace

Upon becoming Egypt’s president in 1970, Anwar Sadat vowed that one of his main missions would be to regain the Sinai Peninsula captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. This was attempted in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, ending with a ceasefire. 

In contrast to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who sought to broker a separate peace agreement between Egypt and Israel and remove Egypt from the Soviet sphere of influence, Carter’s policy centered around a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement. In fact, with the Soviet Union, he aimed to co-sponsor a second Geneva multilateral conference with Israel and the Arab states including rejectionist states such as Syria to achieve this aim. 

Sadat opposed the conference as he objected to Syrian and Soviet participation. He nevertheless recognized the potential critical role the US played in the Middle East and the need for a resolution to the conflict, so made his historic visit to Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was cautiously willing, recognizing how such a brokering would usher in a historic period of stability in the region. 

However, after months of talks, negotiations were on the verge of collapsing given the lack of trust between Begin and Sadat. This was the opportunity Carter was waiting for to help broker a separate peace between Egypt and Israel, cementing Cairo’s alignment with the US camp.

As stated by Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, “if Egypt is out of the conflict, there will be no more war.”

Thirteen Days in September^[1]

Carter would play a critical role brokering negotiations, and offered the presidential retreat of Camp David in rural Maryland as a neutral location in September of 1978. 

Historic mistrust compounded by recognition of so much at stake and hot tempers (both Begin and Sadat were prone to slamming the table and storming out of the room), Carter engaged in shuttle diplomacy like Kissinger, bringing in revised drafts and relentlessly pursuing the talks. 

The Landmark Agreement

After an exhausting two weeks, the Camp David Accords or “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” was finally completed, with the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty formalized the following year. It entailed a roadmap towards full Egyptian-Israeli peace, recognition of Israel - the first by an Arab state - an end to its involvement in the Arab boycott, and a return of the Sinai Peninsula. 

Beyond these commitments, Sadat’s signing was conditional on steps made towards a Palestinian state. 

He found an ideological ally in Carter; more than any previous American president, Carter believed the conditions for peace in the Middle East entailed: a) recognition of Israel’s right to exist, b) permanent borders for Israel, and c) a Palestinian state.^[2]

A Watershed Agreement

The Camp David Accords was “the historic first peace treaty signed between Israel and an Arab state.” Once a key threat to Middle East security, the Israeli-Egyptian relationship became a “resilient cornerstone of regional stability” with the Accords “reshap[ing] the region’s political landscape.”

Both Begin and Sadat credited Carter as central to the Accords, earning him the nickname “father of Arab-Israeli normalisation.”

The agreement has also been declared “a model for peacemaking that remains highly relevant today,” providing the framework for other treaties such as the Oslo and Abraham Accords. 

It’s Complicated…

After Carter was defeated by Republican Ronald Reagan, he remained actively involved in Middle Eastern affairs, creating the Carter Center dedicated to conflict resolution and writing numerous books and articles. 

While many of his pieces were critical of the Israeli government and policies, none were as virulently hostile as his controversial 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

First and foremost was the provoking title, not shying away from apartheid accusations. Carter defended his choice, claiming he was not asserting that there was actually apartheid in Israel (though organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have cited him to bolster their arguments) but that he merely wished to spark a different understanding^[3] of the situation and to help restart peace talks.

Careless…or Intentional?

An additional challenge was Carter’s problematic writing style and absence of sources. Claims based on perception were often portrayed as fact, contributing to misinformation and bias. Maps were adapted to suit his claims, comments taken out of context, and inaccuracies abounded.

Whenever statements would be challenged, Carter would smile and respond, “it is obvious you did not read my book,”deflecting responsibility and demonstrating shock at the audacity.

Fact…or Fiction?

Former advisor on Middle East issues Kenneth W. Stein observed, “[Carter] does what no non-fiction author should ever do: he allows ideology and opinion to get in the way of facts.”

A common theme was the obsession with the Israeli government, with little corresponding demands of accountability or a reneging of violence on the part of the Palestinians. There was almost a singular focus condemning the settlements in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria as being the main hindrance to peace, glossing over both Palestinian incitement of violence as well as repeated rejections of peace deals. 

Carter was condemned for making many assertions that were simply not true, such as claiming Israel refused to trade land for peace and neglecting to mention that Palestinian women held in Israeli prisons had been complicit of planning attacks and assisting suicide bombers. 

The Sentence That Clinched It

In response to what many viewed as obsessive one-sidedness and “malicious advocacy”, fourteen members of the Carter Center resigned in protest.

They argued, “While Carter played a neutral broker during the Camp David talks…he grew increasingly critical of Israel after leaving office.” In addition to “egregious errors of both commision and omission to suit his desired ends,” they criticized his writing for being “biased, inaccurate, misleading and missing key historical facts.”

The final indignation was one carelessly (or intentionally) written sentence: “it is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” This phrase dangerously implied that violence was a legitimate means to an end and conditional on external action, emboldening the perpetrators while enraging Israelis and allies. 

When confronted, Carter acknowledged the incendiary nature of ‘when’ and promised to have future editions edited. 

An Exercise in Creative Writing? 

A review of Carter’s book reveals numerous cases in which he rewrote history to reinforce his claims. For instance, in recalling meetings with Syria’s dictator Hafez al-Assad, he misrepresented the dictator’s willingness to demilitarize the Golan Heights, portraying him as reasonable and Israel, as inflexible and uncompromising. According to Stein who had been at the meetings, “This was not a slip of memory…these were intentional distortions.”

When he pointed out these distortions, he received a patronizing, “Remember Ken, only one of us was president of the United States,” indicative of Carter’s belief in his infallibility.

The Middle East Whisperer?

The perceived success of the Camp David Accords bolstered Carter’s conviction in his unique ability to broker peace in the region. He often neglected to acknowledge that the Accords were only feasible due to the unique partners of Begin and Sadat and the particular context. Carter strongly believed that had he had a second term, he could have successfully achieved a long-standing Israeli-Palestinian peace. 

What he neglected to recognize was that “there is no evidence that the Arafat of the early 1980s was more willing to compromise or abandon terror than the Arafat faced by Clinton,” maintaining he would have succeeded where Clinton failed. 

Overstepping the Line

Perhaps most injuriously, Carter also ignored or downplayed provocations and atrocities committed by the Hamas terrorist group. As stated by Andrew Latham, a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, “This imbalance undermined his moral authority and contributed to the perception that he was more invested in vilifying Israel than in fostering a genuine peace process.” Carter would use the past tense to describe the terrorist entity’s orchestrated attacks and overlook both their denial of Israel’s right to exist.

His obscuring of facts to simplify the situation as one of oppressors and oppressed “not only distorted the realities on the ground but also weakened the prospects for a balanced resolution.” Most glaring, he “omitted the systematic indoctrination and indictment perpetuated by Palestinian leadership, which fosters a culture of resistance to peace and coexistence.”

In 2008, the former US president met with Hamas leaders. In reporting on their conversation, he asserted that they were not behind the terrorist attacks (though they claimed responsibility), and that they were willing to engage in peace deals and recognize Israel - fabrications which baffled many.

When criticized by the US and Israel, Carter insisted that he had “secured a personal commitment that Hamas would accept a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders if the agreement were approved in a Palestinian referendum” - one which neither Israel nor the US trusted.

A Legacy of Complexity and Contradictions

The Camp David Accords remain to this day, a critical turning point in Middle East history. Carter’s instrumental role as mediator will forever mark the records of bridging otherwise intractable differences. His arrogance in distorting facts to suit his purposes, obsession about Israel, and selective focus on responsibility for the conflict however, inflamed many. For these reasons and others, Carter has been called a “flawed peacemaker” as he has legitimized dictators and terror leaders while putting disproportionate expectations on Israel. In the current Israel-Hamas war, several found him to be contradictory and apologetic, and a frequent user of inaccurate moral equivalencies. 

While Carter’s legacy is a testament of resilience to effect change, “it also serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of idealism when confronted with the harsh realities of international politics.” From perhaps well-intentioned but misguided and naive statements, there was a malevolent undertone that has caused many to question Carter’s true motives. 

 

 

^[1] The title of Lawrence Wright’s book detailing the Camp David shouting matches and drama

^[2] While the two countries have adhered to their sides of the bargain, commentators criticized that there was no Palestinian representation at the summit and little movement on this front. 

^[3] In spite of his claims to invite discussion, he repeatedly objected to meeting acclaimed lawyer Alan Dershowitz who called the title “indecent.” In fact, he remarked, “Carter’s refusal to debate wouldn’t be so strange if it weren’t for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate.”