In the Pacific, we know that climate change is exacerbating a human rights crisis. Our survival relies on the world following international law to limit the warming that threatens our people and shores. Yet the recent trajectory of Pacific governments picking and choosing which rights to defend and which to ignore is deeply troubling.

At the core of international law lies the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court. In a landmark decision this year, the ICJ condemned Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, declaring it unlawful and calling for an end to the occupation, dismantling of settlements, and reparations to the Palestinian people. Crucially, the ICJ urged all states to refrain from assisting or enabling this violation of international law.

The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to support the ICJ’s findings, in a motion opposed by just fourteen members. Shockingly, Pacific Island nations made up half of Israel’s support: Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, and Tuvalu, voted against the resolution. In the region, only the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands supported it, with Vanuatu, Samoa and Kiribati abstaining.

This raises many questions. Why would half of Israel’s limited diplomatic support come from a handful of Pacific nations on the other side of the world? More crucially, can the Pacific afford to selectively apply international law and human rights, especially when it is relying on that very same moral authority to protect its communities from the existential threat of the climate crisis?

The overwhelming majority of the Pacific is Christian, and there is a conflation in many churches with supporting Israel and Zionism as fulfilling a Christian duty. The link between being a Christian and supporting Israel is, of course, confusing — after all, Bethlehem is located within the West Bank and Palestinian Christians and churches are just as much targets in Israel’s military aggression as Muslims. This lack of nuance has led to  a Trump-esque move, with Papua New Guinea already opening and Fiji planning to open Israeli-funded embassies in Jerusalem, in violation of international law.

Another significant factor is the diplomatic influence of the United States, Israel’s key financial backer and weapons supplier. The US is a major aid donor in the Pacific, and its influence is especially strong in the Northern Pacific where it maintains multiple military bases. US imperial influence often shapes Pacific nations’ foreign policy. Israel’s increasing strategic presence in the Pacific, particularly Fiji and Tonga, takes the form of provision of military technology, security cooperation, water management and humanitarian assistance. Mutually, for over forty years Fijian UN peacekeeping troops have serve in Jerusalem, the Sinai and the Syria-Golan Heights.

However, despite the position taken by Pacific governments, pro-Palestinian protests have taken place in Fiji, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, New Caledonia, Micronesia, Saipan and Guam.

Change is possible. The Marshall Islands, historically one of Israel’s strongest diplomatic allies, shifted its stance after the war in Gaza. It abstained from the ceasefire vote and voted “yes” on the ICJ resolution. As its Climate Envoy Kathy Jetn̄il-Kijiner pointed out, Pacific countries are under no obligation to vote against human rights, that they should vote with humanity rather than political alliances and warned that their moral high ground to call for climate justice would be on shaky ground if they continued to ignore human rights elsewhere.

The Pacific is facing a catastrophic future as the world hurtles toward a rapidly warming planet. Appeals to humanity’s better nature have failed, and one of the last avenues for climate justice  may be international law. The Pacific, led by Vanuatu, has a historic case currently before the ICJ, seeking clarification of States’ climate responsibilities under international law. Undermining ICJ decisions on human rights sets a dangerous precedent and risks eroding the international human rights framework we rely on.

Human rights are universal — whether violated by Israeli bombs or rising sea levels. Can the Pacific expect the world to respect international human rights for the climate crisis when it provides diplomatic cover for Israel’s gross violations?