Late President Jimmy Carter Tried To Warn Us About AIPAC

Jimmy Carter, AIPAC, and the Question of Peace in the Middle East

Former President Jimmy Carter was never a fringe voice on Middle East peace. As the architect of the Camp David Accords, the only lasting peace agreement between Israel and an Arab neighbor, Carter spoke from direct experience. That is precisely why his later criticism of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) carried weight—and controversy.

Carter’s central argument was simple but unsettling to Washington insiders: AIPAC does not function as a pro-peace organization. Instead, he argued, it exists to advance the policy preferences of the Israeli government of the moment—regardless of whether those policies promote peace, occupation, or expansion.

“Not a Peace Lobby”

Carter was explicit in interviews and writings that AIPAC’s mission is not to pressure Israel toward compromise. In his view, the organization works to ensure unconditional U.S. political, military, and financial support for Israel, even when Israeli government actions undermine negotiations or violate international norms.

As Carter put it in substance—not as a slogan—AIPAC supports what Israel wants, not what peace requires.

This distinction mattered deeply to him. Carter believed that real peace required:

• An end to settlement expansion in occupied territories

• Respect for Palestinian self-determination

• Honest U.S. mediation rather than automatic alignment

He argued that AIPAC actively punished U.S. lawmakers who questioned these positions, creating a political environment where criticism of Israeli policy was treated as disloyalty rather than legitimate debate.

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

Carter’s most sustained critique came in his 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. While the title drew intense backlash, the substance of the book focused on how U.S. domestic politics—particularly lobbying pressure—prevent American leaders from acting as honest brokers.

Carter argued that:

• U.S. presidents and members of Congress privately acknowledge the damage caused by settlements

• Publicly, however, they remain silent out of fear of political retaliation

• AIPAC plays a central role in enforcing that silence

He stressed that criticizing Israeli government policy is not antisemitic, nor is it anti-Israel. Rather, he framed it as pro-peace and pro-international law.

A Veteran Diplomat’s Warning

What makes Carter’s critique unique is not its rhetoric, but its source. This was not an activist or academic outsider. This was:

• A former U.S. president

• A Nobel Peace Prize laureate

• A man who personally negotiated peace in the region

Carter warned that blind support for any government—without accountability—ultimately harms both Israelis and Palestinians, locking both into a cycle of violence and instability.

He believed that peace required leverage, honesty, and courage—qualities he felt were undermined when U.S. policy became captive to domestic political pressure rather than long-term strategic and moral interests.

Why Carter’s Words Still Matter

Decades later, Carter’s critique remains relevant. Debate over AIPAC’s influence has entered the mainstream, but the underlying issue he raised persists: Can the United States pursue peace if it is unwilling to challenge policies that perpetuate conflict?

Jimmy Carter’s answer was clear.
Without independence, there can be no honest mediation.
Without honesty, there can be no peace.

And without the courage to question powerful interests, even a superpower becomes constrained—not by foreign governments, but by its own political fear.

Carter in his own words