Pacific Elders call for reversal of Forum’s Israel partnership

The Pacific Islands Forum’s partnership with Israel is the decision facing criticism. The Pacific Elders’ Voice is asking the Forum to review and cancel the agreement. It believes the relationship conflicts with the region’s stated principles on human rights, peace, decolonisation and international law.

The criticism is linked to Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and alleged violations of international law. The PEV endorsed a Pacific Regional NGO Network statement that called for the partnership to be reviewed and reversed. The Pacific Council of Churches and Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre also support ending it.

The call reflects a wider concern about consistency. Pacific organisations support self-determination and investigations into alleged abuses in places including Kanaky and West Papua. They argue that keeping the partnership could weaken the Forum’s credibility on those same principles. The PEV wants the agreement reversed so future partnerships match Pacific positions on peace, justice and international law.

The Pacific Islands Forum is a regional intergovernmental organisation that brings Pacific governments together on shared concerns. These include peace, security, climate change, human rights and political status. The article focuses on the Forum’s external partnerships and its responsibility to keep them consistent with regional principles.

Israel’s admission as a Forum partner gives Israel a formal relationship with the organisation. The article does not specify the partnership’s exact rights, duties or activities. It does show that the relationship is important enough to draw criticism from Pacific civil society groups and to prompt calls for an official review.

The disagreement is therefore about both policy and principle. Critics ask whether the Forum can partner with Israel while supporting Palestinian rights and Pacific self-determination causes. The PEV says reversing the agreement would help ensure the Forum’s external relationships reflect its stated commitments to peace, justice, decolonisation and international law.

The Pacific Elders’ Voice is the organisation leading this call. It issued a statement urging the Pacific Islands Forum to review and reverse its partnership with Israel. Its concern is that the agreement conflicts with Pacific commitments to human rights, self-determination, decolonisation and international law.

The PEV endorsed a statement from the Pacific Regional NGO Network. It also backed calls from the Pacific Council of Churches, the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre and other national and regional non-governmental organisations. These groups are not presented as one single organisation, but they share opposition to continuing the partnership.

Their involvement shows that criticism extends beyond one group. Pacific civil society organisations are challenging the Forum’s decision and asking it to align external relationships with regional values. The PEV says the agreement should be reversed, while the broader network of organisations is pressing for an immediate end to the partnership.

The criticism focuses first on the conflict in Gaza. The Pacific Elders’ Voice also highlights Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and what it describes as violations of international law. These concerns are central because the Pacific Islands Forum presents itself as committed to human rights, peace and respect for international law.

The PEV endorsed concerns raised by The Elders, an international group of independent leaders. The Elders criticised the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and urged governments worldwide to act urgently. The PEV also connected these concerns to the future of a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

Critics say the partnership creates a test of the Forum’s consistency. The Forum supports investigations into alleged serious human-rights violations involving France and Indonesia in Pacific contexts. The PEV argues that maintaining a partnership with Israel despite its concerns could undermine the Forum’s stated opposition to abuses and denial of self-determination.

The article identifies four examples of unresolved political-status and self-determination questions in the Pacific. They are Kanaky, also known as New Caledonia, French Polynesia, West Papua and Bougainville. These examples show that self-determination is not an abstract issue for Pacific governments and civil society groups.

The Pacific Elders’ Voice says it has consistently supported decolonisation and self-determination in Kanaky and West Papua. It has also supported investigations by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Pacific Islands Forum into alleged serious human-rights violations by France and Indonesia.

These four examples shape the criticism of Israel’s partnership. The PEV argues that the Forum must apply its principles consistently. If it supports self-determination in Pacific cases, critics say it should carefully consider a partnership connected to policies they believe deny Palestinian rights and violate international law.

The main consequence identified by critics is a loss of consistency and credibility. The Pacific Islands Forum supports human rights, decolonisation and self-determination, yet it has partnered with Israel despite concerns about Gaza, West Bank settlements and alleged violations of international law. The PEV says this contradiction raises serious questions.

The mechanism is comparison with Pacific cases. The Forum and PEV support self-determination in places such as Kanaky and West Papua. They also support investigations into alleged serious human-rights violations by France and Indonesia. Critics therefore ask why the Forum should maintain a partnership with Israel while raising similar principles elsewhere.

The disagreement could affect how the Forum presents its regional leadership. Civil society groups say its vision of an Ocean of Peace must include climate justice, human rights and colonial legacies, not only narrow security concerns. Reversing the partnership, the PEV argues, would protect the Forum’s stated commitments to peace, justice and international law.

In international politics, decolonisation generally means ending colonial rule and addressing its continuing political effects. Self-determination means that a people can decide their political status and pursue their own development. The source does not give formal definitions, but it connects both ideas to Pacific struggles over political status and human rights.

The article names Kanaky, French Polynesia, West Papua and Bougainville as unresolved examples. The Pacific Elders’ Voice supports decolonisation and self-determination in Kanaky and West Papua. It also supports investigations into alleged serious human-rights violations involving France and Indonesia. These positions explain why Israel’s partnership is viewed as especially troubling.

For Pacific organisations, peace and security cannot be separated from colonial legacies. The PRNGO says an Ocean of Peace must address climate change, fossil fuels, extractive industries, militarisation, nuclear legacies, gender-based violence and denied self-determination. The PEV therefore links regional security to justice, human rights and political freedom, not only military concerns.