Former US president Jimmy Carter’s death has stirred controversy and debate in the Zionist community. More than a hesitation to speak ill of the dead, many Zionists have enthusiastically lauded Carter as an ally of Israel, while many others, arguably the majority of Zionists, have spoken critically of the former president as an enemy of the Jewish state and people.
The debate in the Zionist camp over Carter’s legacy as it relates to his relationship with Israel teaches a lesson that extends far past president Carter and the US-Israel relationship. This debate highlights a fundamental principle of Zionist philosophy.
Our family set a goal to travel to the 48 contiguous states before our aliyah. One of my goals (not necessarily shared by my family) was to visit every presidential library.
These edifices to the presidents are more museums than libraries, and they tend to focus on the accomplishments of each president. Most presidential libraries tend to be large, with many displays praising the president’s multiple achievements.
Large crowds of adults celebrate their favorite president and show their children their cherished memories of the president. While visiting the Carter Library, I thought it was fitting that it was a small library with only one large display – the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords – and we were the only people in the library.
The debate lines between the pro-Carter camp and the anti-Carter camp in the Zionist world can be drawn between Carter’s life as president and his post-presidency life. The “pro-Carter” camp in the Zionist world focuses on the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords and the transformation it brought to Israel.
A Jerusalem Post headline read, “Jimmy Carter, a longtime friend to Israelis and Jews alike.” The “anti-Carter” camp of Zionists focuses on his post-presidency criticism of Israel and befriending of Hamas and other enemies of the Jewish state.
At the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords signing
At the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords, then-president Carter said, “Let history record that deep and ancient antagonism can be settled without bloodshed and without staggering waste of precious lives, without rapacious destruction of the land.”
Surprisingly, there were, and are still, critics of the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords. They claim the accords didn’t achieve as much as they should have, for it left the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unsettled.
These critics characterize the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords as an act of treachery to the Palestinians. They accuse presidents Carter and Sadat of giving an allowance to prime minister Menachem Begin and Israel to further impede efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state by building Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria.
A similar criticism was made about prime minister Ariel Sharon’s expulsion of Israelis from the Gaza Strip.
“Ariel Sharon came to the White House and said we’re going to disengage from the Gaza. And I was struck by what a bold decision that was. The disengagement is, I think, a part of making Israel more secure and peaceful, and I agree with the prime minister,” then-president George W. Bush remarked.
IN THIS case, as well, critics from the pro-peace camp criticized the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip as an underhanded move to prevent the Palestinians from establishing their own state.
Critics point to a statement by Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s bureau chief, who said, “The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary, so there is no political process with the Palestinians.”
The same focus on the Palestinians was said in criticism of the Abraham Accords. At the signing of the accords, president Donald Trump remarked, “After decades of division and conflict, we mark the dawn of a new Middle East. Thanks to the great courage of the leaders of these three countries, we take a major stride toward a future in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live together in peace and prosperity.”
Critics called the Abraham Accords a betrayal of the Palestinians. Ahmad Majdalani, social affairs minister in the PA, said, “The agreement was a stab in the back of the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people.”
In the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, massacre by Hamas, focus has been placed on the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid Qatar paid to Hamas with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approval. The payments were seen as a necessary evil that kept Hamas from attacking Israel.
Here, too, critics point to a statement by Netanyahu (the prime minister denies making the statement) that claims the payments were a way of stopping a Palestinian state by dividing the Palestinian leadership. Critics claim Netanyahu said having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
The critique of every stabilization effort between an Arab and Muslim country and institution, because it doesn’t center around the Palestinians, is an absurd position, and its shortsightedness was best articulated recently by New York Congressman Ritchie Torres.
Torres posted on X/Twitter: “The notion that no Arab or Muslim country should ever make peace with Israel until there’s a final Israeli-Palestinian peace has never made sense to me.
“Why should Israel’s relations with every Arab and Muslim country be held hostage by a single conflict, especially when the greatest stumbling block to solving the conflict are terrorist organizations like Hamas and terror attacks like October 7?
“Why should Hamas, and by extension, the Islamic Republic, have veto power over broader Israeli-Arab peace? Why must peace between Israel and Egypt be seen as a betrayal of Palestinians? Thank God for the Abraham Accords, which represents a Copernican revolution in American thinking about peace in the Middle East.”
A fundamental principle of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to determine their own future. The establishment of the Jewish state allows the Jews to finally center decisions around policies that are best for Israel and the Jewish people.
Critics who demand Israel forgo peace and normalization accords that will benefit Israel and the Jewish people fail to remember a central tenant of Zionism. Israel and its people are not obligated to put another people’s interests ahead of their own.
The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world. He recently published his book, Zionism Today.