By: Summer Kennard
KOROR, Palau — Palau’s decision to vote against a United Nations resolution endorsing Palestinian statehood has ignited both government defense and public outrage. “First of all, there’s always two sides to the story,” President Surangel Whipps Jr. said, defending the choice that aligned the island nation with the United States and Israel. While Whipps framed the vote as a path toward peace and the protection of hostages, a growing number of Palauans expressed disbelief, questioning the morality of the decision in light of the suffering of Palestinian civilians, particularly women and children.
Speaking at a press conference, Whipps emphasized that Palau’s vote reflected its principles and its long-standing alliances. “We support the thought that says we shouldn’t go into any country and abduct its people or kill them, and also keep them as hostages,” he said. “We want to make sure that they come to a peaceful resolution — that was Palau’s position.”
The president explained that Palau’s stance has been consistent since the island nation established ties with Israel and the United States. “Our position with Israel has been the same since the beginning, it hasn’t changed,” he said. “We believe the decision to support Israel is the best path to peace and resolution for Israel, even though it is a very complicated situation. Lives and hostages are still at stake.”
Whipps framed the vote as an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to defend itself while also affirming Palau’s broader hope for peace. “We, like all other countries in the world, want peace, we want lives saved and protected, and we want what is best,” he said. “Our vote reflected our understanding that Israel has the right to defend itself from the hostilities and tragedies that happened.”
Public reactions
The government’s reasoning has met a spectrum of reactions at home, ranging from pragmatic support to moral questioning.
“It’s ironic because our ancestors endured the same struggles the Palestinians continue to face today,” said one Palauan woman. “We know what it means to have our lands invaded, our homes occupied, and our people subjected to violence, displacement, and death.”
Some citizens voiced disbelief over Palau’s alignment with Israel. “I can’t understand this decision,” said a Palauan man. “Seeing the impact of the war on Palestinian people — especially women and children, the atrocities, the starvation — it’s hard to reconcile. This is not the decision of all Palauans.”
Others recognized the difficulty of the vote. “Not everyone agrees with the decision made. It was not an easy decision I bet, but I feel the best thing we could have done to not go against our values is stay neutral,” another man said.
Some highlighted the strategic realities facing a small nation at the UN. “I wish it was another vote, but Palau will always go with majority because we don’t have the number or the weapons,” said a third man. “That’s why we made allies with the U.S. Our leaders made a choice with Palau’s future in mind.”
A senior citizen offered a reflective perspective. “What matters to me is that we choose peace above politics. That should guide every decision we make as a country,” he said.
Younger voices emphasized humanitarian concerns. “I may not know all the details of international politics, but I do know that innocent people are caught in the middle,” said a Palauan student. “Palau should use its voice to speak for peace, not division.”
Others defended the government’s decision as pragmatic. “If aligning ourselves with the allies will keep us at peace and protected, then I think it is a wise decision made,” said a fisherman.
Balancing alliances and values
Palau’s vote reflects the country’s delicate balancing act — maintaining long-standing alliances while addressing moral and humanitarian concerns. For Whipps, the guiding principle is clear: stability and security come first, but the ultimate goal remains peace.
“In the end, Palau’s vote was a small nation’s choice in a complicated conflict,” Whipps said. “What we do is evaluate both sides, listen to both sides, and reflect on the best path forward. Our decision was based on that.”
Even as debate continues, it shows how a small nation like Palau navigates complex global conflicts, weighing alliances, national interests, and moral responsibility, all while the world watches.
