Indonesia shouldn’t trade Palestine for OECD membership

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto recently signaled that the country may consider recognizing Israel—if Israel, in turn, recognizes Palestinian statehood. The remarks, made during talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, surprised many. Yet they closely reflect Indonesia’s broader strategic ambition: to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

For years, Israel—a member of the OECD—has reportedly blocked Indonesia’s accession, citing the absence of diplomatic ties. Now, with Jakarta eager to elevate its global standing and strengthen economic relationships with the West, a question looms: Should Indonesia trade its decades-long commitment to Palestinian rights for the prestige and potential benefits of OECD membership?

Indonesia has long been a consistent and principled advocate for Palestinian self-determination. That position is not mere posturing—it is grounded in the country’s anti-colonial identity and moral commitments. Since its founding, Indonesia has refused to normalise relations with Israel, viewing its occupation of Palestinian land and repeated military campaigns in Gaza and the West Bank as incompatible with international justice.

To reverse that position now—particularly while Israel continues a devastating campaign in Gaza—would signal a betrayal of these long-held values. It would also risk undermining Indonesia’s standing in the Muslim world and among nations in the Global South that have long looked to Jakarta as a moral voice in global affairs.

OPINION: Why Indonesia must reject the Arab-Israel normalisation wave

Critics of Indonesia’s policy argue that normalisation with Israel is the cost of entry to the OECD. But that is a false choice. Several OECD members, including Turkey and Mexico, maintain complicated or strained relationships with Israel while retaining full membership. There is no reason Indonesia cannot pursue the same path: engaging with the OECD while holding firm to its commitment to Palestinian rights.

Indeed, accession to the OECD could be a powerful platform for Indonesia—not to silence its principles, but to project them. From within the organisation, Indonesia could push for greater scrutiny of member states’ positions on occupation and apartheid, challenge prevailing double standards, and advocate for justice in global governance. It could use its voice to call out the complicity of powerful countries and demand accountability for ongoing violations of international law.

The OECD should not be treated as a reward for political alignment, but as a forum for constructive engagement. If Indonesia joins on the condition that it compromises its moral foundation, its membership will be hollow.

The broader problem is the international community’s continued commitment to a two-state solution—a model that has long failed Palestinians. The facts on the ground, including the unchecked expansion of Israeli settlements and the fragmentation of Palestinian land, make the vision of two viable, sovereign states increasingly implausible.

Indonesia, with its legacy of anti-colonial resistance and principled diplomacy, has the credibility to challenge the outdated two-state framework. It should advocate for a rights-based approach that guarantees equality, dignity, and justice for Palestinians. Whether through a single democratic state or another inclusive model; any viable solution must start with the recognition that the current status quo is untenable.

Prabowo’s statement raises a deeper concern: the risk of transactional diplomacy displacing principled foreign policy. The Indonesian people, by and large, remain steadfast in their support for Palestine. Any move toward normalisation with Israel would likely provoke a public backlash and raise questions about democratic accountability at home.

International legitimacy cannot be bought through silence or moral compromise. It must be earned by standing firm in the face of injustice. Indonesia’s foreign policy has historically exemplified this principle, from its leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement to its outspoken defence of oppressed peoples. That legacy must not be discarded for short-term political or economic advantage.

Indonesia’s true influence in the world has never stemmed from wealth or military might. It has come from moral clarity and bold leadership. If the country seeks a place among the world’s most developed economies, it should do so on its own terms—without abandoning the values that have long defined its role on the global stage.

The world does not need another silent bystander. It needs countries willing to speak hard truths. That is the Indonesia the world respects—and the one its people deserve.

OPINION: The Palestine Question at the ASEAN-GCC-China Summit

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.