Controversy over Indonesia-Israel relations

Controversy over Indonesia-Israel relations

The Foreign Minister has finally said plans to establish ties
with Israel are on hold for an indefinite period and that any
such plans would be consulted with legislators. International
relations researcher Riza Sihbudi of the Indonesian Institute of
Sciences looks at the factors which need to be taken into
account.

JAKARTA (JP): The controversy over the need to open ties with
Israel was reflected in widespread demonstrations reaching
Bandung and Cirebon in West Java to Padang in West Sumatra.
Resistance was displayed by several Muslim organizations,
students and members of the House of Representatives (DPR). But
there were also those who were in favor of the plan.

Those who resisted based their argument on the fact that
Israel was still colonizing and trampling on the Palestinians,
and that it would not conform to Resolution no. 242 and 338 of
the United Nations Security Council. This resolution urges Israel
to withdraw from the Arab/Palestinian territory they have
occupied since the wars of 1967 and 1973.

Those who supported the plan said relations with Israel had
already been conducted, albeit not in the open. They also said
the existence of the Israeli state could not be denied and that
trading with Israel would be no different than trading with any
other country.

The issue of Indonesian-Israeli ties resurfaced not long after
the new Cabinet of President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) was
formed; Gus Dur and Foreign Minister Alwi Shihab mentioned their
wishes to open ties with Israel although only at the level of
economic and trade links. Their intentions were based on at least
three factors: Gus Dur and Alwi wished to be considered
consistent in their high commitment to pluralism and inter-faith
tolerance, opening trade ties with Israel would be a kind of
"short cut" to local economic recovery and by opening ties with
Israel, Jakarta hoped to help the settlement of the Middle East
conflict.

At first Gus Dur and Minister Alwi wanted to open diplomatic
ties between the two countries. But with reactions in the country
rejecting such statements and also the objections of a number of
Arab country envoys, Gus Dur stated he would not open diplomatic
ties with Tel Aviv until the Jewish state recognized the
independence of Palestine. Indonesia would then only open
economic and trade ties with Israel. But what really would have
been the advantages and disadvantages of trade ties with Israel?

The advantages for Indonesia would be: 1) to pressure Arab
states into helping Indonesia's economic recovery; 2) to gain
Israeli weaponry or military equipment at relatively cheaper
prices; 3) to have Indonesia recognized as the largest country
with a majority of Muslims who were moderate, although led by a
kyai (religious teacher); 4) that formal ties with Israel was
better than the current less visible relations; 5) business
networks would be expanded in the Middle East; 6) to attract
Jewish-American investors or conglomerates to Indonesia; 7) to
increase Indonesia's lobbying power in the international arena;
8) George Soros, the Jewish international broker, would hopefully
no longer "disturb" the economy; 9) the United States -- Israel's
main ally -- would hopefully help to maintain the Indonesian
unitary state, in view of rumors that "foreign powers" had a part
in trying to tear Indonesia apart.

Ties between Israel and Indonesia would also give at least
three benefits to Tel Aviv: first, Israel would gain larger
political and economic access to Southeast Asia for free; second,
Israel would increase its bargaining position to the Arab and
Muslim World; third, such ties would ease Israel's political and
economic access to other Muslim regions as Indonesia has the
world's largest Muslim population.

However, the disadvantages to Indonesia would include: 1)
widespread domestic controversy which would be counterproductive
to national economic recovery; 2) the potential for a further
split in society; 3) Gus Dur would be considered to have
"betrayed" Muslim political forces, especially those in the "axis
force" which helped him become president; 4) suspicions would
arise that Gus Dur was trying to shift public attention to the
main reform agenda which is so far not settled (collusion,
corruption, nepotism, Soeharto, the military's dual function,
regional autonomy and so forth); 5) Indonesia would be considered
-- especially by Middle East countries still rejecting Israel --
as being inconsistent with supporting the struggle of the
Palestinian nation; 6)Indonesia would be considered to have
betrayed its own Constitution which explicitly rejects all forms
of colonialism on earth; 7) the potential disruption of economic
and political ties between Indonesia and the Arab World.

Given the above factors, for further deliberation it would do
no harm for the Gus Dur government to look at the following
aspects:

Firstly, the Palestine-Israel issue contains political and
religious aspects, which needs extra caution in related policies;

Secondly, President Gus Dur and Foreign Minister Alwi should
intensify dialog with various groups in society -- such as the
House of Representatives, universities and mass organizations --
before deciding to embark on any formal ties with Israel. Even
trade ties are considered a bridge to diplomatic ties, as in the
case of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China.

Thirdly, we should first learn from other countries which have
opened political and economic ties with Israel such as Turkey,
Egypt and Jordan. Is it true that their economies improved after
having ties with Israel?

Fourthly, let Palestine and Israel first settle their
negotiations for peace, scheduled to reach the final stage in
September 2000.

In this era of reform, the government should open itself to
aspirations from the public. History shows that arrogance
resulting from power frequently becomes a boomerang to the power
itself.