‘President Carter was the only US president to achieve a meaningful peace agreement between Israel and any other country, as the Camp David Accords saw Israel withdraw from occupied Egyptian territories in 1967,’ writes Sami Abu Shehadeh. [GETTY]
The death of former US president Jimmy Carter is a symbolic loss of the values of democracy and human rights, and serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding those values worldwide – especially in the Middle East. In the face of recent events, we must ask ourselves whether a country like the US can even call itself democratic when it has a foreign policy that allows for, and even encourages, a genocide to unfold.
Indeed, what is happening in Palestine challenges the very principles of the so-called rules-based international order, and this may lead us to ask what president Joe Biden, after his great failure, would advise a future leader from the Democratic party’s new generation?
The outgoing president may tell those taking the mantle, that in order to be a real champion of democracy they must avoid any double standards, as they set dangerous precedents in international relations. For example, taking different approaches in the Middle East compared with the Ukraine (in other words impunity versus accountability), means that Russia could perfectly argue that occupying, annexing a territory, forcibly displacing a population and even targeting UN peacekeepers, have been allowed without any consequences when it comes to Israel.
So far, not only has this approach undermined the US’ status in the global south and beyond, but has also dented the value of justice, equality and international law.
Carter’s legacy in the Middle East
President Carter was the only US president to achieve a meaningful peace agreement between Israel and any other country, as the Camp David Accords saw Israel withdraw from occupied Egyptian territories in 1967. With this, the president proved that international law and UN resolutions could and should be the basis for any agreement, at least one that is just, fair and lasting.
Furthermore, in 2006, Carter published his landmark book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, in which he went further than any Western leader in addressing the true nature of the Israeli occupation by naming it apartheid. Almost twenty years later, this reality has become a point of consensus for all major Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organisations.
In his important book, Carter endorsed the two-state solution aimed at ending the Israeli occupation, rather than reshaping it as others have suggested. He also addressed the final status issues such as Jerusalem, borders, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. While his stance on refugee return—favouring resettlement in a future State of Palestine based on the 1967 borders rather than in what is now Israel—may not be acceptable to all Palestinians, it provided a framework far more progressive than what is offered by the current administration.
After all, there can be no peace agreement without honouring the rights of Palestinian refugees, including almost a quarter of the nearly two million Palestinian citizens of Israel who are internally displaced. This was point that hindered Carter from fully addressing the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A racist project
Zionism emerged as a settler colonial project in Palestine at the end of the 19th century. Its leaders sought solutions to European anti-Semitism, but ended up proposing another form of racism that either ignored the existence of the Palestinians in their homeland, or viewed them as an inferior group that does not deserve the same rights as, “the Jewish people”. This approach was rooted in Western imperialism and colonial enterprises, rather than one based on equality.
The Zionist movement’s insistence on establishing a Jewish state in a land where the vast majority of inhabitants were Palestinians who are not Jewish, led them to commit savage crimes against the Palestinian people long before the 1967 war, and even the Nakba in 1948. The most significant of their crimes was the ethnic cleansing and expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war, carried out to create the Israeli state.
This expulsion and the subsequent prevention of refugees to return to Palestine stems from the racist elements of Zionism, which sought to establish a Jewish state grounded in religious and racial exclusivity, ensuring a significant Jewish majority and dominance.
It is impossible to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without digging into the roots of this problem, and learning about the inherent racism within the Zionist project.
One of the biggest challenges in explaining the Palestinian question, is antisemitism and its implications on Europeans and Americans after World War II. Extensive research, books, poetry, and films in particular, in Europe and the US, have portrayed the Jewish people as the ultimate victims of racism in human history. Until the recent genocidal war in Gaza, the majority of states and societies in the West struggled to envision Jews as anything but victims of racism.
Though, Zionism has complicated this narrative, and turned victims into victimisers.
This line of thinking reduced racism to a single category: antisemitism. While it is undeniable that antisemitism is a vile form of racism that led to one of the most horrific atrocities in human history, the Holocaust, it is not the sole manifestation of racism.
Palestinian lives don’t matter
Racism, unfortunately, is still alive and kicking. It is impossible to understand how the West can watch the livestreamed genocide in Gaza whilst barely doing anything to stop it, without understanding the simple fact that they are racist. Palestinian lives are not equal to Israeli lives. These racist double standards are allowing another genocide in the 21st century. Indeed, without American support – as well as backing from European states like Britain and Germany – Israel would not be able to commit its crimes.
So, how would president Carter have addressed a genocide? Firstly, to end this atrocity, we need to accept the facts – something the current US administration has systematically refused to do.
How would he have dealt with students demonstrating against the complicity of their institutions with war crimes? How would he have dealt with racist and discriminatory institutions fundraising in the US to support illegal colonial-settlements? He would have likely recognised the responsibility his country bears and would have at least raised awareness about activities that violate the basic principles enshrined in the constitution.
To achieve a long-lasting peace and to resolve the situation in Palestine – the way president Carter wanted – there must be a shift. We can no longer treat the resolution of the “Jewish question” or the “Palestinian question” in isolation.
Anyone who seeks a historical compromise, must establish a solution based on the values of justice, freedom and equality for all, for Israelis and Palestinians. Discussions regarding the political framework – whether its a two-state solution, one democratic state, a bi-national state, a confederation, or other alternatives – should come only after we establish the foundational principles. Our initial focus should be on implementing the Palestinian right to self-determination, as well as the collective and individual human rights of everyone involved. Only then can we discuss the political frameworks.
To achieve this, we must confront and struggle against the racist Israeli legislations and the discriminatory principles of Zionism that prevent the possibility of a sincere discussion regarding equality for all citizens. We must deal equally with Palestinians and Israelis alike, rejecting any notion of Jewish Superiority. A Jewish state, by definition, seeks to maintain this superiority, effectively denying equality—both in practice and by law—among all its citizens.
All those who seek peace, justice and equality, like president Carter, cannot ignore the structural racism embedded in the concept of the “Jewish State” and the Zionist project. We must deconstruct the racist elements in Zionism and the Jewish state in order to build democracies based on the values of justice and equality for all.
In this incredibly difficult and dark period in history, we must strive for a better future for all. Keeping hope alive is our only option. Our frustration must be transformed into an anger that will fuel our energy and keep us on the right path – one that leads to freedom, peace, justice and equality for all.
Sami Abu Shehadeh is a Palestinian historian and a former member of the Israeli Knesset. He is the leader of the Balad, or Tajamou’, party.
Follow him on X: @ShahadehAbou
Have questions or comments? Email us at: [email protected].
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.
