The Carter Center, under the auspices of former US President Jimmy Carter, has been providing material support for terrorism by providing services to terror organization like Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) aimed, allegedly, at promoting positive and peaceful goals such as the promotion of inter-Palestinian reconciliation.
These allegedly peaceful goals have been promoted for years by the Carter Center (as well by Jimmy Carter himself) through the provision of professional services such as expert mediation and consultations to terror organizations like Hamas in an effort to negotiate reconciliation between them and Fatah.
Whatever the Carter Center’s true intentions are in these interventions, one thing is clear – these actions violate US law which explicitly prohibits any kind of assistance to terrorist organizations, and therefore constitute material support for terrorism.
The US Supreme Court has made it clear on the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project case (2010), that any service or professional advice given to a terror organization constitutes material support, even if meant for a worthy or peaceful cause. The Carter Center has actually filed an amicus brief during the case arguing against the court embracing the law regarding material support of terrorism (as it would make many of their activities illegal).
A recent article by The Washington Free Beacon also states that, according to the plaintiffs, the Carter Center has violated the law by hosting designated terrorists at is facilities and through the provision of various forms of assistance to known terror entities.
Services provided by legitimate organizations (like the Carter Center) can and often do contribute to the terrorist organization’s own legitimacy, credibility, connections, status, and potential political power of its representatives.
On November 2015, a case filed by the International Legal Forum and attorney David Abrams from New York against the Carter Center was, for acting against American law which prohibits any kind of assistance to terrorist organizations, and for being involved in illegal activity and exploitation of funds received from USAID to support terrorism.
Unfortunately, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has decided to act for the dismissal of the case. However, no arguments were made to refute the existence of material support for terrorism. Plausibly, the dismissal is largely motivated out of the discomfort over prosecuting a former president.