Indonesia’s Middle East Dilemma: Can Moral Diplomacy Deliver Real Peace?

Indonesia has long portrayed itself as a more than a bystander in world affairs, especially when it comes to the Middle east. The government has been consistent in emphasizing one message, the two -state solution, namely, an independent Palestine coexisting peacefully alongside Israel, as the only viable path to peace. This is nor framed solely as diplomatic routine but as part of Indonesia’s moral and historical identity, rooted in its anti-colonial legacy, and its role as the world’s largest Muslim-majority democracy.

At international forums, Indonesian officials reaffirm that the two-state solution is non-negotiable. In statements at the UN and the East Asia Summit, Jakarta has insisted that recognising both Palestine and Israel is central to restoring stability.  Recently, the government has signalling conditional openness to establishing ties with Israel if Palestinian statehood is first recognised and even floating the idea of sending peacekeepers under a UN Mandate. In domestic media, the principle is presented as straightforward: both states must exist with secure borders and mutual recognition.

The ambition is clear. Indonesia seeks recognition as a moral actor in international politics, a voice that bridges Muslim societies, the Global South, and multilateral institutions. The policy is designed to elevate Jakarta’s reputation as a responsible stakeholder in global peace, in line with its 1945 constitutional mandate to world order based on freedom, lasting peace, and social justice.

Joseph S. Nye offers a framework that helps evaluate such ambitions. Nye (2019) argues that foreign policy can be judged on its intentions, means, and consequences. Noble intentions are necessary but insufficient if not backed by legitimate instruments and effective results. In a 2020 essay, Nye emphasizes that moral credibility is a form of soft power, where it attracts rather than coerces, creating legitimacy that can shape international outcomes.

In hindsight, Indonesia’s intentions appear both principled and consistent.  Justice for Palestinians, peace in the Middle east, and a rules-based international order align with the country’s values and foreign policy tradition. Its means are legitimate: diplomacy, multilateral engagement, coalition-building rather than unilateralism or coercion. However, can Indonesia’s moral diplomacy yield tangible results in a conflict where even great powers struggle to make an impact?

There are areas where Indonesia’s approach strengthens its standing. Consistency on Palestine reinforces soft power by highlighting Indonesia’s credibility in the Muslim world and among postcolonial states. Tying its policy to UN resolutions and international laws boosts multilateral norms at a time when many are weakened. Also, Jakarta’s relatively neutral positions put it as a potential bridge-builder, assumed to be able to mediate across divides.

Domestic political dynamics also matter. Indonesian public opinion, strongly sympathetic to Palestine, constrains leaders from adopting any policy perceived as conciliatory to Israel. Externally, Indonesia must navigate competing interests among Arab states, the U.S., Iran, Turkey, and other actors. This delicate balance often leaves limited room for independent initiatives.

Even if Indonesia deploys peacekeepers or engages in mediation, the outcomes could be mixed or counterproductive. A failed peacekeeping mission, for instance, might tarnish Indonesia’s reputation rather than enhance it. Nye’s third dimension—consequences—thus serves as a sobering reminder that moral intent must be measured by actual effects, not aspirations alone.

There is also a question of selective moralism. Indonesia is vocal in Palestine but less assertive on other world’s crises such as Ukraine or Rohingya. Without consistency, moral diplomacy risks appearing opportunistic rather than principled, undermining the soft power Indonesia seeks to build.

For Indonesia to move beyond rhetoric, several steps are crucial. Building coalitions with like-minded states (e.g.: Arab League members, the European Union, and Global South coalitions) to amplify its voice is the most urgent, acting alone guarantees marginal impact. Strengthening peacebuilding capacity through mediation expertise, humanitarian aid, and post conflict reconstruction would give Jakarta tools to match its values. Clarifying benchmarks for conditional recognition of Israel-such as halting settlement expansion or returning to 1967 borders would provide credibility and transparency. In the times where global and local is connected, Jakarta needs to engage civil society and the public in discussions about foreign policy choices, ensuring legitimacy at home. These work as a litmus test if Jakarta can consistently apply principles not just as a supporter of Palestine but as advocate for justice.

Indonesia’s positions in the Middle East are thus more than a matter of regional diplomacy. It is a test of whether Jakarta can transform moral rhetoric into practical influence. If successful Indonesia could emerge as a credible peace actor, bridging divides and strengthening global norms at a time when they are under strain. If not, it risks being remembered as a country with noble intentions and grand statements, but little real effect.

In the world where confidence in international organisations is waning, middle powers like Indonesia have an opening. They can prove that morality and diplomacy still matter, not as empty slogans but as instruments of tangible peace. Yet as Nye (2019) reminds us, foreign policy is judged not by declarations but by outcomes.  For Indonesia, the true measure of its moral diplomacy will be whether it can move from symbolic solidarity to concrete results in one of the world’s intractable conflicts.

Irine Hiraswari Gayatri, Senior researcher at Research Centre for Politics, BRIN