Indonesia condemns West Bank annexation while sustaining a dangerous contradiction |
This week, Indonesia joined Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates in condemning Israel’s decision to designate large areas of the occupied West Bank as so-called state land. The joint statement called it a serious escalation. It cited violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.
The details matter. Israeli media reported that the proposal came from Defense Minister Israel Katz, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Justice Minister Yariv Levin. Smotrich described it as a continuation of a settlement revolution to control all the land. Levin spoke of strengthening Israel’s grip on all its territories. The plan allows the state to claim most of the West Bank as state property when Palestinians cannot prove ownership. It revives land registration procedures frozen since 1967.
This is not routine settlement expansion. It is administrative annexation.
Indonesia condemned it. At the same time, it sustains a contradictory course.
In the same week, Foreign Minister Sugiono met Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian permanent observer to the United Nations, in New York. He attended discussions ahead of the Security Council session on the Middle East. He met Secretary General Antonio Guterres. He reiterated Indonesia’s commitment to a two-state solution. He announced President Prabowo Subianto’s participation in the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington.
One is too many: Indonesia must act now on citizen serving in Israel’s army
Sugiono stated that Indonesia’s involvement in the Board of Peace is guided by the United Nations Charter and Security Council Resolution 2803 of 2025. He expressed readiness to contribute to stabilization efforts in Gaza, including health support, reconstruction and potential peacekeeping deployment.
These steps address nothing. They ignore the political core of the conflict.
Israel’s move in the West Bank demonstrates that the two-state solution, as currently framed, has no pathway to realization. The land designated as state land is the territorial basis of any future Palestinian state. When that land is absorbed into Israel’s administrative system, partition becomes fiction.
There is no “if” left in the two-state solution. There is no political will in Israel’s governing coalition to allow a sovereign Palestinian state along the June 4, 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israeli ministers state their objective openly. Control all the land. Consolidate sovereignty. Expand settlements.
Continuing to endorse two states without enforceable conditions risks normalising permanent occupation. A different approach is gaining traction among Palestinians and their supporters, a one state framework grounded in equal rights, equal citizenship and one sovereign authority over the entire territory.
Diplomacy that repeats a formula without confronting this reality becomes hollow.
Critics of President Prabowo and Minister Sugiono argue that Indonesia must reassess its framework. Continuing to endorse two states without enforceable conditions risks normalising permanent occupation. A different approach is gaining traction among Palestinians and their supporters, a one state framework grounded in equal rights, equal citizenship and one sovereign authority over the entire territory.
That debate cannot be avoided by restating old language.
Indonesia’s officials emphasise reconstruction and humanitarian support. Those efforts matter. Gaza needs hospitals, housing and infrastructure. But reconstruction without a political horizon traps Palestinians in a cycle of destruction and rebuilding.
Indonesia’s officials emphasise reconstruction and humanitarian support. Those efforts matter. Gaza needs hospitals, housing and infrastructure. But reconstruction without a political horizon traps Palestinians in a cycle of destruction and rebuilding.
Domestically, Indonesian lawmaker, Dave Laksono, framed participation as a way to ensure that developing countries are represented in global peace governance. Representation of the global south is important. It is not the urgent gap. The urgent gap is direct and central Palestinian representation in any mechanism that shapes Gaza’s reconstruction or the region’s political future.
A Board of Peace that proceeds without full Palestinian authority risks institutionalizing management of the conflict rather than resolving its root cause. Governance structures must not substitute for political settlement.
Another lawmaker, Sukamta, urged President Prabowo to press for immediate cessation of violence and maximum protection for Palestinian civilians. Protection is essential. Civilians in Gaza and the West Bank face daily risk. Yet protection is a short-term measure. Stabilization without sovereignty leaves the structure of domination intact.
One meeting, one shift: Indonesia’s Muslim organisations change course on the Board of Peace
Indonesia’s officials emphasise reconstruction and humanitarian support. Those efforts matter. Gaza needs hospitals, housing and infrastructure. But reconstruction without a political horizon traps Palestinians in a cycle of destruction and rebuilding.
Palestinians need a long-term solution anchored in self-determination and a coherent political vision. That requires clarity about the end state. Is it two states with defined borders, security guarantees and international enforcement? Or is it one state with equal rights for all who live between the river and the sea?
Condemnation alone does not answer that question.
Indonesia has positioned itself as a consistent defender of Palestinian rights since Bandung in 1955. This week’s joint statement shows moral clarity about the illegality of Israel’s actions in the West Bank. The next step requires strategic clarity. Align diplomatic language with political reality. Center Palestinian agency in every forum. Move beyond ritual denunciations toward a defined end goal.
Without that shift, Indonesia risks speaking forcefully while the map changes irreversibly on the ground.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.