Published 29 November 2024 · Climate politics / Palestine Pacific nations can’t afford to be hypocrites on human rights Kavita Naidu 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? Kavita Naidu Kavita Naidu is a feminist climate activist and international human rights lawyer from Fiji. More by Kavita Naidu › Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places. If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate. Related articles & Essays 4 February 20254 February 2025 · Indigenous Australia Teaching Palestine on stolen Indigenous lands Charlotte Mertens Refusal is not only possible, it generates different worlds. Refusal insists on the possibility of alternative anti-colonial futures and ways of being. Refusing the University’s erasure of Palestine involves a collective effort in thinking on how we will teach Palestine, the ongoing settler colonial violence and what this means for a place like Australia. 29 January 202529 January 2025 · Palestine The demonisation of the Palestine movement fuels anti-Muslim racism Mariam Tohamy and Miroslav Sandev The spate of anti-Muslim racist attacks around the country are being fuelled by the anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian policies of mainstream politicians. Political attempts to undermine the Palestine movement and bipartisan support for Israel’s genocide are causing this.