Peru’s Abstention on Palestine Draws Criticism at Home
Politicians and foreign-policy analysts say Lima is moving away from its traditionally balanced position and closer to Washington and Israel.
Peru’s abstention in a UN General Assembly vote on Palestinian participation has triggered criticism from a senator, foreign-policy analysts and a former presidential adviser. They argue that Lima is abandoning its traditionally balanced approach and moving closer to the United States and Israel. The government’s rationale and the former adviser’s allegations about instructions to Peru’s UN delegation are not addressed or independently verified in the supplied evidence.
## Verified facts
Peru abstained in a United Nations General Assembly vote concerning Palestinian participation in the body’s 81st session. According to the source, the resolution passed with 152 votes in favor, three against and four abstentions. The vote was intended to enable Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to participate remotely after Palestinian officials faced difficulties obtaining U.S. visas.
Peruvian senator Mirtha Chávez described Peru’s abstention as “shameful” and said it represented a departure from the country’s previous diplomatic approach toward the Palestinian issue. International-affairs analysts Francisco Belaúnde and Óscar Vidarte likewise criticized what they regarded as a shift away from balanced positions. Former presidential adviser Julio Schiappa also accused Foreign Minister Carlos Espá of directing Peru’s UN delegation to support Israel and alleged that this was intended to prevent a Palestinian representative from speaking by video link.
## Interpretation
The criticism reflects a domestic debate over whether Peru’s foreign policy is becoming more closely aligned with the United States and Israel. The cited commentators frame the abstention not as an isolated procedural decision, but as evidence of a broader change in Lima’s diplomatic orientation and a break with what they describe as Peru’s traditional support for balanced positions and the Palestinian cause.
The vote’s political significance in Peru therefore appears to arise from its symbolism: critics view the abstention as a departure from a longstanding diplomatic tradition and as a possible indicator of stronger alignment with Washington. However, the available evidence records the critics’ interpretation and does not establish that Peru has formally abandoned its previous policy or adopted a comprehensive pro-Israel foreign-policy platform.
## Uncertainty
The source does not include a statement from the Peruvian Foreign Ministry, Minister Carlos Espá, or the government explaining the rationale for the abstention. Schiappa’s claims about instructions to the UN delegation are presented as allegations and are not independently corroborated in the supplied evidence. The source also attributes the claim that an international UN-linked commission concluded that Israel committed genocide in Gaza to Senator Chávez; that characterization is not independently verified here. The analysis is based solely on the supplied report and its cited statements.