Rethinking Israel
There is no question that Israel should be applauded for withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It was obviously a difficult decision for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in defying thousands of fanatical constituents who had to be removed by force from these occupied territories.
But Sharon finally recognized that without such a sacrifice, there could be no end to the discord between the Israeli and Palestinian people.
Whatever tears fell as a result of the forced removal of Jewish families from these territories can be collated with the well of suffering experienced by Palestinians who've lived under occupation for decades as a consequence of Israel's criminal expansionism.
The withdrawals represent the most significant step toward peace since the 1993 peace agreement that provided for Israeli recognition of Palestinian self-rule in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Should Israel stay on the rocky road to peace -- instead of harboring Zionist segregationist and expansionist inclinations -- Sharon may have made the unlikeliest of transformations: from hawk to dove, from the "Butcher of Shabra and Shatila" to a warrior of peace akin to Menachem Begin and Yitzak Rabin.
Already the Sharon government is trying to reap international dividends from its bold move.
Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, held separate discussions with counterparts from Islamic nations.
Among them was Indonesia's Hassan Wirayuda.
The Israeli and Indonesian foreign ministries have both refused to either confirm or deny the reported meeting.
Jakarta has consistently retained its position of supporting the Palestinian cause and refusing to engage in diplomatic ties with Israel until a comprehensive resolution has been reached. It is obviously wary of provoking domestic sentiment and does not want the recent meeting to be construed as a first step toward full relations.
We agree that Indonesia should resist opening full diplomatic ties with the Zionist state. But at the same time we also encourage a much more thorough debate on the available options vis-a-vis the question of Israel, beyond simplistic dogmas of ideological preconceptions and narrow-minded religious tenets.
The fact is that relations on individual and trade levels do exist with Israel. If the peace process progresses as everyone hopes, the opportunities of engaging with the Middle East's most modern state is a requisite for a country like Indonesia.
Thus far Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population, has served as a cheerleader to the Palestinian cause. It talks the big diplomatic rhetoric, but its most consistent contribution is limited to "wishful thinking" on the fate of Palestine.
If Indonesia truly wants to play a significant role in the Middle East process to further help the Palestinian cause -- which it can do given its geostrategic and political positioning -- opening some form of relationship with the state of Israel is a prerequisite.
Engagement with Israel would not be indicative of Indonesia's defection against Palestine. On the contrary, the start of relations, and their potential intensification, could be based on a quid pro quo of Israel's adherence to the peace process.
We are in no way advocating full diplomatic relations, but rather encourage dialog on the possibility of establishing a semi-formal relationship of the lowest common denominator -- perhaps in the shape of an economic trade office the likes of which Taiwan has established here.
We support contingencies that would provide for the relationship to be downgraded or severed in the event of recalcitrance on the part of Israel during the peace process.
It is time to be more pragmatic in our approach to this issue if we are to truly help the Palestinian people. Even President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has suggested that Indonesia play a bigger role in the Middle East peace process, and this is certainly one way to translate his words into deeds.
Our diplomatic rhetoric claims to fully support Palestine. But without seizing latent opportunities that may encourage progress, what Jakarta is really doing is just sitting on the fence.