An Ocean of Peace is NOT Built on Occupation: Pacific Civil questions the Pacific Forum on Israel partnership

Israel’s new partnership is a regional relationship with the Pacific Islands Forum, announced after the 55th Pacific Island Leaders Forum in Palau. The Forum Secretariat had not issued its own statement, but it had already hosted a MASHAV development cooperation Talanoa with Israel. MASHAV is identified in the article as Israel’s development cooperation programme.

The partnership could involve cooperation on water, food security, agriculture, development and climate adaptation. Those needs are urgent across Pacific communities. The Alliance does not reject partnerships in principle. It objects to welcoming Israel without conditions while the article says Israel remains in breach of international law and ICJ rulings.

The Alliance urges Forum leaders to suspend all engagements until Israel complies with international law and the Court’s rulings. It also warns that cooperation could expand into security, military technology and infrastructure, affecting Pacific diplomacy, regional unity and the declared Ocean of Peace.

The Pacific Islands Forum is the regional institution bringing Pacific leaders together around shared concerns and values. The article links its work to justice, peace, self-determination, international law and the wellbeing of Pacific peoples. It also describes the Forum’s role in speaking internationally and coordinating cooperation on regional needs.

Israel’s new status is partnership, not membership in the Forum family as a Pacific state. That distinction matters because the article describes Israel as an outside state gaining an official relationship with the regional institution. The partnership has already included a MASHAV development cooperation Talanoa, although the article does not specify its formal voting or decision-making rights.

The PRNGO Alliance fears this relationship could normalise Israel’s conduct and expand beyond development. It could support security cooperation, military technologies and infrastructure. The Alliance therefore asks leaders to suspend engagements until Israel complies with international law and ICJ rulings, protecting both regional principles and unity.

When the International Court of Justice calls the occupation unlawful, it means Israel’s continued control of Palestinian territory violates international law. The article presents this as a legal finding, not merely a political criticism. It says the Court issued its Advisory Opinion on 19 July 2024.

The key mechanism is the set of duties described by the Court. Israel must end the occupation “as rapidly as possible” and evacuate all settlers. Other states must neither recognise the occupation as lawful nor “render aid or assistance” that helps maintain it. The article also cites Security Council Resolution 2334, which says settlements have no legal validity.

This finding matters for Pacific diplomacy because Pacific leaders rely on international law when addressing climate issues and regional security. The Alliance argues they cannot invoke the Court for Pacific islands while ignoring its position on Palestine. It therefore opposes unconditional Forum engagement with Israel.

After the ceasefire announced on 10 October 2025, the article says violations continued. UN OCHA reported 1,493 Palestinians killed in Gaza and 4,300 Palestinians displaced from the occupied West Bank. These are separate figures: one records deaths in Gaza, while the other records displacement in the West Bank.

Added together, the figures total 5,793 reported deaths or displacements. That combined number should not be read as 5,793 deaths, because the two categories measure different harms in different places. The article uses the figures to show that the ceasefire did not end the humanitarian crisis.

The Alliance connects this continuing harm to its wider concern about Forum cooperation with Israel. It also cites alleged deprivation of Gaza’s water, damaged cropland and war-related emissions. These impacts, it argues, conflict with Pacific priorities on water, food and climate security.

If the partnership continues without conditions, the Alliance expects effects beyond development projects. It says the relationship could tie Pacific diplomacy to bilateral favours and make the region complicit in a conflict far from its shores. That could weaken the shared values that hold Pacific regionalism together.

The article identifies a concrete security mechanism. A partnership could facilitate security cooperation, military technologies and infrastructure. It would add to military exercises and security treaties already crowding the Pacific Ocean. The Alliance also fears that different national positions could divide Forum members and affect the region’s voice at the United Nations.

The wider consequence could be damage to the Blue Pacific’s declared Ocean of Peace. Leaders defined that vision through justice, sovereignty, self-determination, environmental stewardship and wellbeing. The Alliance calls for suspension until Israel follows international law, arguing that solidarity based on shared values matters more than access to resources.

Pacific organisations connect this issue to history because many island communities remember the damage caused by outside control. The article names colonisation, nuclear testing and environmental destruction as experiences that still shape regional politics. These memories make occupation and self-determination immediate concerns, not distant foreign-policy issues.

The article points to continuing struggles in Kanaky New Caledonia, Ma’ohi Nui, Guahan and West Papua. West Papua has been a long-standing item on Forum leaders’ agenda. This history provides the Alliance’s central comparison: Pacific leaders defend the right of peoples to determine their future, so they should not overlook another people’s claims under occupation.

The partnership therefore risks weakening Pacific solidarity and credibility. The Alliance says regionalism rests on shared values, not only shared resources. If leaders welcome Israel without conditions, it argues, they may appear to tolerate occupation while asking the world to respect Pacific self-determination and international law.

International-law rules on unlawful occupations protect the principle that territory cannot be kept through conduct declared illegal. The article says the ICJ found Israel’s occupation unlawful and required it to end rapidly. If other states recognised that situation as legitimate, they could help turn an unlawful condition into an accepted one.

The mechanism is therefore restraint. States must not recognise the occupation as lawful, and they must not render aid or assistance that maintains it. The article also cites Security Council Resolution 2334, which says Israeli settlements have no legal validity. These rules make outside governments responsible for avoiding support that strengthens the unlawful arrangement.

For the Pacific, the issue is also about consistency. Forum leaders have called for respect for the UN Charter and the rights of all peoples to live in peace and security. The PRNGO Alliance argues that Pacific governments cannot rely on international law for island concerns while ignoring the same legal duties in Palestine.