When Democrats and liberals smeared Jimmy Carter for criticizing Israel

Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, has died at the age of 100.

Carter was often celebrated for the humanitarian work he did after leaving office in 1981 and, unlike many other ex-presidents, he didn’t shy from weighing in on contemporary political debates.

In 2006, he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which was based on his participation in the Camp David Accords. In the book, Carter argues that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and continued expansion of illegal settlements are preventing a peace agreement from being reached.

Carter’s work ignited a robust smear campaign, as pro-Israel organizations and pundits vociferously objected to his use of the word “apartheid.” The mainstream media shredded the book as well, with the New York Times calling it a “distortion” stemming from an “awfully narrow perspective.”

However, the ex-president was also denounced by many members of his own party.

“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said then Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, “On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”

Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also helped distance the party from the book. “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel,” she explained. “Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.”

Former president Bill Clinton sent a handwritten note to American Jewish Council (AJC) Executive Director David Harris expressing his appreciation for the AJC’s attacks on the book. “I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) come from but Dennis Ross has tried to straighten it out, publicly and in two letters to him. At any rate, I’m grateful,” he wrote.

Journalist Michael Kinsley, a longtime symbol of the liberal establishment, eviscerated the book in a Washington Post piece titled, “It’s Not Apartheid.” Kinsley wrote that Carter made “a foolish and unfair comparison” by invoking South Africa. “Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre,” said Kinsley. “Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. That is not true, of course, in Arab countries, where hatred of Jews is a standard part of the curriculum.”

Historian Deborah Lipstadt, who is currently the Biden administration’s Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism, even went as far as to accuse Carter of “soft-core denial” for not mentioning the Holocaust more in his book. After Carter pointed that many Jewish-American organizations had condemned his book Lipstadt wrote that he was falling back on “traditional anti-Semitic canards.“

Fifteen members of the Carter Center’s advisory board (the humanitarian organization that the former president founded in 1982) resigned over the book. “Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status,” wrote the group. “The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel’s right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts.”

One of those members, Steve Berman, has since apologized to Carter about the whole affair. Earlier this month he told his story in The Forward. “President Carter warned everyone in 2006 that we all had the choice of Peace Not Apartheid,” he wrote. “Some have made deliberate choices on the matter of Israeli occupation; some have walked in a stupor, blaming the other for their shortcomings. Others still blame the messenger for the message.”

Berman penned his apology to Carter in a letter and he received a response. “You have no reason to apologize, but I accept your wonderful letter as you obviously intend it,” Carter wrote back.” I sympathize and understand the feelings of my many friends, who reacted as you did.”

“I was shaken and inspired by his humility,” says Berman. “Carter owed me nothing, yet gave me a sense there is a capacity within us all for unconditional love.”

The points Carter made in his book are now regarded as uncontroversial by even the most mainstream of human rights organizations and (nearly twenty years later) there’s even some Democratic lawmakers who will publicly admit that Israel is an apartheid state. However, Berman’s apology is obviously an outlier. Carter touched the third rail and for most Democrats, that’s still an unforgivable sin.