Jimmy Carter’s radical and courageous pragmatism offers a lesson for today
As America eulogizes Jimmy Carter, it is essential to reflect on a key component of his legacy that enabled him to succeed as a peacemaker in the Middle East: radical pragmatism rooted in humanity.
This principle allowed him to broker peace between Egypt and Israel, two nations that had been mortal enemies. Recognizing a post-war opportunity, Carter helped build the conditions for the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords, a milestone in modern diplomacy.
In the 1970s, Egypt was in turmoil. President Anwar Sadat sought to pivot away from Pan-Arabism and decades of warfare, refocusing Egypt on nation-building and development. Sadat realized the futility of perpetual conflict with Israel, recognizing the potential benefits of peace for Egyptians and the broader region. His bold vision and willingness to engage Israel set the stage for historic transformation.
Carter’s brilliance lay in seeing how peace could serve both nations’ strategic interests while uplifting their people. He used such incentives as phased Israeli withdrawals from the Sinai Peninsula and U.S. foreign aid to create trust and momentum. Carter understood that Egypt, the Arab world’s most politically significant nation, held the key to unlocking regional stability. He also saw that Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories was untenable, recognizing that perpetual occupation of Arab lands would never be sustainable.
Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, despite deep-seated animosities, prioritized their nations’ futures over past grievances. Carter’s pragmatism helped bridge their divides, showing the power of diplomacy rooted in mutual interest and human understanding. The accords, which endure decades later, are a testament to the courage and foresight of all three leaders.
Today, as the Middle East reels from the horrors of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the devastation of Gaza, Carter’s legacy feels particularly resonant. Despite immense suffering, this moment offers a chance for breakthroughs reminiscent of the post-1973 Yom Kippur War environment. The large-scale degradation of Hamas in Gaza, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and shifting dynamics in Syria and Iran provide an opportunity to reshape the region.
As a Gazan and Palestinian-American, I know firsthand the immense toll of this conflict. My people have endured decades of blockade, displacement and despair; my family alone has lost over 30 lives. My homeland stands at a crossroads: It could remain a symbol of tragedy or become the starting point for transformative change. Just as Carter’s pragmatism brought together Sadat and Begin, bold leadership is needed today to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Radical pragmatism is required. For Palestinians, this means moving beyond violent resistance and stagnant leadership to articulate a vision for nation-building. The Palestinian cause cannot survive on violent terrorism or narratives of suffering — no matter how valid. For Israel, it means recognizing that perpetual occupation and settlement expansion are not sustainable. These policies erode both Israel’s moral standing and long-term security, making peace with Palestinians and regional stability ever more elusive.
The U.S. must also play its part. Carter’s strength lay in his willingness to challenge entrenched narratives and speak hard truths to all sides, even close allies. His warnings about Israel’s “entrenched military occupation” and expanding settlements were not borne of hostility but of deep concern for the country’s future. He recognized that Israel’s security depended on integration into a stable and prosperous region, not domination over its neighbors.
Gaza, much like Egypt in the 1970s, holds the potential to lead change. Transforming it into a model for effective Palestinian governance would not only improve lives but also pave the way for broader reconciliation.
Despite overseeing a frail economy and enduring criticism of his foreign policy, Carter’s courageous pragmatism helped stabilize the Middle East in ways that resonate even now. His efforts created a foundation upon which subsequent agreements, like the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty and the Abraham Accords, were built. Carter’s legacy reminds us that peace is possible, even between bitter enemies, when leaders are willing to take risks for the greater good.
The current moment demands similar courage. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve leaders who can prioritize their people’s futures over entrenched grievances. For Palestinians, this means withdrawing from alliances with forces like the Iranian “Axis of Resistance” and focusing instead on building a viable, peaceful state. For Israelis, it means embracing policies that uphold the dignity and humanity of Palestinians as viable neighbors, not inherent adversaries.
Carter’s radical pragmatism reminds us that even the most intractable conflicts can yield to courageous diplomacy. His success in bringing together Sadat and Begin showed that the impossible is achievable when leaders are willing to act. Today, Gaza stands at a similar crossroads. The stakes are high, but Carter’s legacy proves that bold action and pragmatic leadership can create pathways to peace.
The world must act, not out of idealism but necessity. Gaza, like Egypt before it, can become the starting point for a new chapter. Carter’s lesson is clear: Peace is not just a distant hope — it is an urgent, essential and pragmatic goal.
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib is a resident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and an American writer and analyst who grew up in Gaza City, having left in 2005 as an exchange student to the United States.