On December 29, former President Jimmy Carter died at the age of 100. As the 39th President of the United States and as a private citizen, Carter has been an advocate for peace between nations, democracy, and various humanitarian and environmental issues. But in the Middle East, he will be remembered as the father of Arab-Israeli normalization.

Sworn in as president in 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat gave Carter the opportunity to be the architect of the first normalization deal between an Arab country and the Zionist state. Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin helped conclude the Camp David Accords in 1978 and negotiate the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979, which officially ended the conflict between the two countries.

As developments in the past four decades have shown, neither the agreements nor the treaty have led to peace and justice in the Middle East. Israel continues its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and wages a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip; The Palestinians still lack an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. The overwhelming majority of the Arab public refuses to recognize Israel or agree to normalize relations with it.

If we look at the agreements brokered by Carter, it is clear that they were the beginning of a slow and gradual abandonment of the Palestinian cause by Arab officials, albeit not publicly acknowledged, and the beginning of an American campaign to bury Palestinian national aspirations.

Camp David legacy

The Camp David Accords served primarily as a roadmap toward full Egyptian-Israeli peace, Egypt’s full recognition of Israel, and an end to Egypt’s participation in the Arab economic boycott of Israel. It is certain that the agreements were merely a framework for negotiations between the two countries that would lead a few months later to the signing of a peace treaty.

But it also included provisions relating to the Palestinian people, the wording of which referred to the ultimate goal of the agreements. The document talked about a plan to provide “self-rule” to the “residents” of the occupied territories, as if the Palestinians were foreigners sitting in the West Bank and Gaza.

At that time, the United States had not yet recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Thus, the agreements called for the election of an “autonomous authority” for the occupied territories. But this autonomy and elected authority was to be supervised by Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, in clear violation of the Palestinians’ right to form an independent national government.

Throughout the 1980s, due to US-backed Israeli objections, the Palestinians were absent and prevented from playing a role in developing peace plans for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But the outbreak of the First Intifada in December 1987 and Jordan’s 1988 surrender of its claim to the West Bank made it clear that the Palestinians could no longer be ignored in peace negotiations.

However, in 1991, the Palestinians participating in the Madrid Conference were only present as part of the Jordanian delegation, and once again denied their own statehood.

Like other versions of the US-led and sponsored “peace process,” the Madrid process has led to a dead end, with Israel continuing to ignore the national rights of Palestinians and rejecting any talk of ending its occupation. Following the 1992 Israeli elections that brought the Labor Party to power, the United States sponsored the Oslo Accords between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel that led to the creation of the Palestinian National Authority. As a constituted government of the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority was required to recognize Israel’s right to exist before ensuring formal Israeli recognition of Palestinian grievances and national aspirations.

For its part, Jordan was forced to sign a peace treaty with Israel, becoming the second Arab country after Egypt to recognize the Zionist state. All that Amman was able to maintain from its relationship with Palestine was custodianship over the religious places in Jerusalem, a position considered Constantly challenged By the Israeli authorities today.

Abraham Accords

Throughout the so-called “peace process” launched by the Camp David Accords, the United States was keen to encourage Arab countries to view their interests separately from those of the Palestinians. This encouragement turned into a full-fledged campaign during the presidency of Donald Trump, who, along with his aides in his administration, showed more American bias than usual in favor of the Zionist state.

In 2020, Trump oversaw the signing of the so-called Abraham Accords that led to the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. Sudan joined the following year.

While all the Arab countries involved insisted that normalizing relations with Israel would help improve the lives of Palestinians and should not be seen as abandoning them, the reality is that they all got something in exchange for recognition of Israel without any regard for Palestinian interests.

It seems that the Emirati normalization with Israel is the fastest and deepest. the Two countries Military and economic relations quickly developed and expanded. Bahrain aims to use its relations with Israel as a hedge against an aggressive Iran. Morocco received much-desired recognition from the United States sovereignty On Western Sahara. Sudan was able to remove its name from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism.

It is certain that the Abraham Accords were nothing more than deals that promoted the interests of the signatories at the expense of the Palestinian cause, allowing Israel to deepen its apartheid policies and consolidate its occupation of Palestinian lands.

It is not difficult to see a strong desire in the next Trump administration to develop an expanded map for Arab normalization with Israel, a map that includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example. As was the case with previous normalization deals, the Palestinians will be the last to count on any gains from further Arab openness to Israel.

A welcome change of heart

After the end of his presidential term, Carter continued his efforts for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. But the more he observed the situation on the ground, the more he became convinced that the US policy of unwavering support for Israel was wrong and counterproductive.

Thus, in 2007, he published a book entitled Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, in which he declared that Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories amount to the crime of apartheid. This was a welcome change from a long-held belief among many politicians and opinion makers in the United States. Carter remains the only prominent American politician brave enough to call Israeli policies and practices by their proper names.

As Americans mourn his death and remember his legacy, it is important to reflect on the disastrous US policies in Palestine. Over the past four decades, the Israeli occupation has become more violent, thanks in large part to unconditional American support.

It is time for Washington to review its position towards Israel and Palestine. A reversal in US policy toward Palestine – one that recognizes Palestinian rights and holds Israel responsible for its crimes – is what Jimmy Carter would have most likely wanted to see in his lifetime.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.