Out of the Shadows: Why Do Pacific Island Nations Support Israel?

On the map of international relations, Pacific island nations are often perceived as voices confined within their small geographic limits. Yet, practical experience reveals a striking paradox: despite their small size and limited economic resources, some of these countries at times gain diplomatic weight far beyond their actual scale—particularly in international institutions such as the United Nations.

A notable example of this is the consistent pro-Israel stance adopted by several Pacific island nations—such as Nauru, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and others—in recent years. This support has been expressed not only in their voting patterns at the United Nations but also through direct diplomatic steps such as opening embassies in Jerusalem or endorsing Israeli policies. This raises key questions: Why do geographically distant Pacific island nations align with Israel? What is the extent of their influence? And what are the implications of their support for Tel Aviv?

Indicators of Support

For decades, a number of Pacific island nations have shown a clear tendency to side with Israel in international forums and bilateral relations. The most notable indicators include:

1. Strengthening Diplomatic Relations
Nauru, Palau, and Micronesia established full diplomatic relations with Israel as early as the 1990s. Some even announced intentions to open embassies in Jerusalem after the U.S. recognized it as Israel’s capital in 2017. Despite their limited financial and human resources, such symbolic gestures carry great significance for Israel.

• Nauru officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in August 2019.
• Papua New Guinea became the first Pacific island nation to open an embassy in Jerusalem in September 2023.
• On September 17, 2025, Fiji announced the opening of its embassy in Jerusalem during Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s visit, becoming the seventh country worldwide to do so after the U.S., Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, and Paraguay.

2. Bilateral Cooperation and Aid
Economic considerations play a central role. Israel, through its aid program MASHAV, provides developmental and technical assistance to Pacific island states that face economic and environmental challenges. This support covers crucial sectors such as health, agriculture, water management (irrigation and desalination), and renewable energy—areas vital for states highly vulnerable to climate change.

Though modest compared to assistance from powers like the U.S., China, or Australia, Israeli aid carries symbolic importance and fosters a “quid pro quo” relationship: in return for development support, Israel secures political backing.

3. Support at the United Nations
Perhaps the most visible sign of support is in UN voting patterns. Nations such as Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the Marshall Islands frequently oppose resolutions critical of Israel, including those concerning the Palestinian question and Israeli violations in occupied territories.

• In September 2024, when the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories, 14 states voted against, including Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, and Tuvalu.
• On September 12, 2025, the General Assembly adopted the “New York Declaration” supporting a two-state solution by 142 votes to 10, with 12 abstentions. Among the 10 opposing states were Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tonga, and Papua New Guinea. Fiji and Samoa abstained.

Revealing Motives

Several intertwined factors explain why some Pacific island states side with Israel:

1. Alignment with Washington
Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau have Compacts of Free Association with the U.S., which provide them with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and security guarantees, including potential U.S. defense in case of external threats. Since Washington is Israel’s closest ally, these states often align their foreign policy with that of the U.S., including support for Israel. Additionally, amid intensifying U.S.-China competition in the Pacific, Israel is seen as a valuable security and technology partner.

2. Religious Influence
Religion plays a role, particularly in strongly evangelical Christian societies such as Micronesia and Palau. Israel is viewed through a theological lens, with leaders expressing support as both a spiritual commitment and a strategic choice.

3. Geopolitical Visibility
Small and often marginalized internationally, Pacific island states seek to amplify their diplomatic visibility by taking bold stances—supporting Israel or opening embassies in Jerusalem brings them global attention. This strategy of “stepping out of the shadows” allows them to trade symbolic influence for political or economic concessions while presenting themselves domestically as nations with a voice in global affairs.

Potential Risks

Supporting Israel is not without consequences. While these countries gain symbolic capital and aid, their stance may expose them to risks such as:

1. Isolation within the Global South: Most Global South states, particularly in the Arab and Islamic worlds, support Palestine. Pro-Israel Pacific states risk isolation or stigmatization in such blocs.
2. Undermining Credibility: Pacific states often champion “climate justice” and demand global action against climate change. By siding with Israel, they may appear to hold double standards, weakening the moral force of their climate advocacy.
3. Security Risks: Though geographically distant, by aligning with the U.S.-Israel camp against Iran and its allies, these states could face indirect security threats, including risks to their overseas interests.

Limits of Influence

Despite the media and diplomatic buzz, the actual strategic impact of Pacific island states on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains limited. With populations of only a few million combined, and negligible economic or military power, they cannot alter realities on the ground. Their impact is primarily symbolic and procedural:

• Symbolically, Israel cites their support to claim broader international legitimacy and to counter the perception of global isolation.
• Procedurally, in UN votes decided by majority, each dissenting vote weakens the appearance of unanimity against Israel, granting it minor but significant diplomatic victories.

Conclusion

The pro-Israel stance of some Pacific island nations is best understood within the framework of symbolic diplomacy—securing visibility, aid, and political leverage disproportionate to their size. While this support does not alter the geopolitical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it provides Israel with valuable narrative tools. At the same time, these nations risk reputational costs and possible political isolation if their choices clash with wider international solidarity with Palestine.