Pre Release Webinar HIMHI 1.0 ‘Indonesia dalam Pusaran Isu Palestina-Israel: Pragmatis atau Liberalis
JAKARTA – HIMHI 1.0 Webinar ‘Indonesia in the Palestinian-Israeli Issues: Pragmatic or Liberal’ is the first webinar series held by the International Relations Student Association (HIMHI) Universitas Bina Nusantara in 2021 which has been held online through the Zoom Meeting platform. The webinar, which took place on August 14th, 2021, raised the theme of issues that are currently happening in Palestine and Israel with resource persons who are experts in the relevant fields, namely Mr. Gilang Al Ghifari Lukman as Co-Founder of the Haifa Institute, Mr. Bintang Hidayanto as Deputy Special Staff of the President for Strategy Expert, as well as Mrs. Tia Mariatul Kibtia, a lecturer in International Relations at Binus University and Middle East observers (academics), the event was hosted by Mrs. Ella Prihatini, a lecturer in International Relations at Binus University. This webinar aims to provide insight on issues that are being a concern to the world community today through the eyes of experts.
With the HIMHI 1.0 Webinar ‘Indonesia in the Whirlpool of the Palestinian-Israeli Problem:Pragmatic or Liberal’, it is hoped that it will be able to answer questions from the people who have participated.
Speaker 1: Gilang Al Ghifari Lukman, BA, M.Phil
Palestine-Israel from the Lens of Middle Eastern Studies
The Modern Middle Eastern Studies generally use the comparison between previous cases in viewing current cases or issues. However, Mr. Gilang stated that the Palestinian-Israel issues are different, because in general, they are difficult to compare with others issue in the Middle East or it is called as sui generis. There are three things that make the Palestinian-Israeli issue unique. First is the unfinished mandate system, Israeli exceptionalism, and unfinished settler-colonial project.
Before Mr. Gilang discussing about the unfinished mandate system, he explained why the Palestinian-Israeli issue are received a great attention from the international community. He used two car accident analogy which the first one involved ourselves and the second one was only a witness of another car accident. Logically, he explained, we will solve the first one because we were directly involved in the accident. The same things also apply in the international community, where the attention will be given to the issue which is the international community directly involved.
The mandate system itself rooted from the World War One aftermath when Britain was given the mandate by the League of Nations to control Palestine and Transjordan from the deposed Ottoman Empire. Theoretically, the mandate control is different from colonialism because it has a time limitation, it is a transition toward independence and Palestinians were not colonial subjects. However, the independence which should be received by Palestinians were never be given by Britain.
The problem come from the conflicting promises because Britain also promised its Palestinian mandate territory to the Jewish in Europe as their homeland through the Balfour Declaration. By that reason the Jews from Europe gradually come and settled in Palestinian land. The flood of Jews migrant in Palestinian Mandate Territory causing the conflict among local Arabs and the settler. The conflict reached its peak when the Arab Revolt erupted in 1936 as the response to the Britain policy.
In the move to ease the tension with Arabs, Britain issued new policy, called The White Paper, to deliver the Palestinian Mandate Territory independence within next 10 years. The Jews community however, rejected the Britain policy citing the British promise about Jew Homeland and concerned their safety in the Arab-majority state. As protest against Britain policy swept across the territory, some Jewish organization conducted terrorism act as can be noticed in the Semiramis and King David Hotel bombing.
As the conflict became more complex, Britain returned its mandate control to the League of Nations successor, the United Nation (UN). The UN, the new holder of mandate, issued the peace formula for the solution called the 1947 Partition Plan. The plan will divide the Palestinian territory into Arab state, Jewish State, and Jerusalem as a corpus separatum. But yet, the proposal was rejected and the Arab-Israeli War erupted in 1948 and resulted the Palestinian refugee crisis or Al-Nakba. Since the issue is still ongoing, the UN as international community representatives still hold the direct responsibility to fulfill the desired solution.The settler colonialism is different from classical colonialism suffered by Indonesia.
According to Mr. Gilang, the settler colonialism, has a purpose to replace the native population and establish a new state on top of it. Also, it’s unclear for a metropole-colony pattern in settler colonialism. In contrast, the classical colonialism’s purpose is to subjugate the native population and has a clear pattern of metropole-colony relations. For the Israeli, their settler colonialism project is not finished since there is still a lot of native Arabs in the territory. Some opinion emerged in Israel that they should eliminate all the remaining Arabs during the 1948 war as time goes by peoples tend to forget something in the past. The same things that happened in the United States, Canada, and Australia after they finished the settler colonialism project.
The Israel exceptionalism come from their suffer during the Holocaust. To avoid another suffering in the future, Israelis claim that they have a right to be treated differently in many aspects. Mr. Gilang explained that They often used the Pharmacy Break-in analogy to justify their needs. The analogy illustrates that in an emergency, an accident victim could break into a pharmacy to get medicine and the government will pay the settlement to the pharmacy owner. However, in the Palestinian case, there is no world government that would ‘pay’ the settlement to Palestinian. Also, after got the ‘medicine’ the Israeli settled there rather than leave the pharmacy, making the analogy irrelevant to the Israeli claim. As a consequence of Israeli exceptionalism, the peace formula becomes complicated and tends to be rejected by Israelis. One of the examples. is the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002.
The Arab states offered the peace with Israel if they leave the West Bank and Gaza, respect the rights of Palestinian refugees, and adhere the international law. The Two-state solution which offered the division of Israel and Palestinian state also rejected. Israeli cited that the solution will make the Israeli state in vulnerable position as their state are near the sea and Palestinian in the mountain. Indonesia in Palestine-Israeli issue: Liberal or Pragmatic? The liberal approach according to Mr. Gilang is defined in the basic, the optimistic view, the importance of non-state actors, and cooperation. Hence, the implications for Indonesia in liberal approach is adherence to the UN-centered international regime, interconnection of global problems and responsibilities, and peace is achievable. A pragmatic approach, on the other hand, will emphasize maximizing the national interest. The national interest itself includes a reflection of international structure, domestic considerations, and the complex relation between them.
Speaker 2: Mrs. Tia Mariatul Kibtiah, S. Ag., M.Si
The History and Recent Developments
Mrs. Tia tries to explore the problems between Palestine and Israel from Indonesian perspective. Diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Israel keep to be considered. Normalization with Israel won’t continue to the next stage because the public or society can’t accept this step. Stereotypes like Kafir to observers indicate that the Indonesian people haven’t been able to clearly see the problems that occured between Palestine and Israel. Based on history, Indonesia actually has no problem with Israel. In 1948, the war between Israel and Arab countries involving Palestine, Greece, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria occurred. The conflict continues into the Six-Days War. Israel aims to control the Sinai and Golan. However, Sinai was taken back by Egypt while the Golan was divided into two parts, one belongs to Israel and the other to Syria.
Next, was the Yom-Kippur war. In these three wars, Israel maintained its position as the victor over the Arab countries. The opening of diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel is not a problem for the Indonesian people. The Indonesian people still see Egypt as a country in the Middle East and known as a country that provides scholarships in the education for the Indonesian student, this makes the Indonesian people not see Egypt as the Holy Land as Indonesians to Saudi Arabia.
The latest issue comes from the gulf countries, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which have opened diplomatic relations with Israel. As it is known that these two countries are Saudi Arabia’s strongest alliance. The reason for the United Arab Emirates to open diplomatic relations with Israel is to maintain the West Bank. Through this cooperation, the United Arab Emirates also can communicate and negotiate with Israel to achieve Free-Palestine as well as Bahrain. Indonesian people always see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait as Islamic countries. In fact, if we look further, these countries adhere to the kingdom system and have nothing link with it. Indonesian people feel that they have ties to Arab countries because of the
Muslim frame. Saudi Arabia under the government of Muhammad Bin Salman experienced a shift in the domestic and foreign policy. Of course this is a new thing because so far Saudi Arabia has been strict with Israel. On several time, King Salman attended AIPAC meetings. The declining economy and awareness of not being able to continue to depend on oil are reasons for the Saudis getting involved with AIPAC, which includes successful and influential Jewish businessmen.
Indonesian Engagement and The Decisions
Until now, Indonesia rejected diplomatic relations with Israel, it is also stated in Indonesia’s first focus as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2019-2020 that is Free Palestine. Although it doesn’t open diplomatic relations with Israel, data shows that the number of trade and tourism sectors between Indonesia and Israel from 2015-2020 continues to increase. This illustrates describing that even though there is no diplomatic relationship, the cooperation between Indonesia and Israel keep going. The relationship between the US and Israel can’t be separated, many large companies in the US are controlled by Jews.
This makes the US always support Israel. The relationship between Indonesia and the US itself has been going for a long time and it is undeniable that the US has contributed to the progress of Indonesia, for example Freeport and other companies and probably one of the leaders is a Jew. Indonesia under the leadership of Gus Dur tried to approach Israel in the Shimon Peres Foundation, but this became a bad rating for Gus Dur’s political career. The point that Indonesia’s insistence is Palestine must be independent as a country or both countries, Israel and Palestine make peace through a Two-State Solution system. In conclusion, Mrs. Tia emphasized that the theory is more suitable to look at this problem from the Indonesian perspective is Liberalism.
For her, Realism has no connection here, because Indonesia never has historical problems with Israel or Palestine. This problem also won’t be solved if we use a religious perspective, but this problem will be better if we look at it from the perspective of international relations.
Speaker 3: Mr. Bintang Hidayanto, S.H
According to the material Mr. Bintang has given, The issue between Israel and Palestine is very complex and contains several other issues inside. These issues involve countries outside of the Gulf States, even when the case itself wasn’t directly tied with countries in the Gulf States. Issues that arise in the relevant region, particularly between Israel and Palestine, give rise to various opinions. For example, consider the problem of Hamas’ opposition to Fatah, which has resulted in increasingly heated debates regarding Israel’s and Palestine’s politics.
This is seen in Hamas’ increasing antagonism to Fatah, despite the fact that both were Palestinian leaders in their separate camps. Hamas is an Islamic political party with the primary donor coming from Qatar. At the same time, Fatah has the most significant donor coming from Israel, also sponsored and endorsed by Hamas. In some parts of Asia, Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organization, despite both camps being guilty of terrorism. Perceptions have shifted as a result of connections. On the Palestinian side, there is a power struggle, and there is a plan for Hamas and Fatah to merge in order to combat Israel. Still, it fails, reinforcing the perception that Fatah is corrupt and convoluted or implicated in aiding Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, is corrupt and militaristic, with its own set of qualities. Fatah has lost influence and internal support as a result of its failure to contribute, whereas Hamas has a large following. Furthermore, Hamas is hostile to Israel. With diverse geopolitical dynamics, the concept of striking Hamas elicits a reaction from its opponents and makes anyone guess where the rockets are. It may also be observed in the resistance against Saudi Arabia that includes Iran and Yemen, as well as Iran’s involvement with Hamas and Israel, which Fatah backs. Israel occasionally has disagreements with Fatah, as well as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The religious aspect of several of these topics is also quite important. Although many political goals also help shape this issue, the ‘framing’ of the problem is based on the concept of religion.
Everything can be put to rest as long as internal problems can be handled via reconciliation. In the face of Israel’s annexation, a solution or permanent deterrence must be developed. But because of the complexity and magnitude of the issue, it is estimated that the whole matter wouldn’t end in the near future and will cause more tension even for other countries. To this day, Indonesia has been relatively neutral. According to the constitution’s contents, Indonesia embraces the principle where Indonesia strictly resists any form of colonialism. Based on that, Indonesia acts against the Israel-Palestine issue. Indonesia has shown a form of support: several facilities are given to Palestine, for example, cost coverage from the Palestine embassy and a 2,3 Million USD aid. Indonesia’s attitude towards this conflict can be maintained based on practical considerations and considering Indonesia’s political strength.
