Peace, Justice, and Palestine: Testing Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Ethics
Prof. Dr. Ahmad Tholabi Kharlie, S.Ag., S.H., M.H., M.A.
(Professor at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
Indonesia’s involvement in the global peace council has become a strategic foreign policy issue that also tests the relationship between the state and the trust of the Muslim community.
President Prabowo Subianto’s explanation to leaders of Islamic mass organizations at the Presidential Palace, Jakarta (2/3/2026), marked both a meeting point and a sensitive point between global political realities and the ethical sensitivities of Indonesia’s religious public.
The forum became a strategic space linking the direction of state diplomacy with the collective memory of the ummah about colonialism, international justice, and especially Palestine.
The government reads the complexity of global geopolitics as a new field of diplomacy, while the ummah interprets it as a moral stake regarding alignment with the oppressed.
Critical responses from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), the stance of the Gusdurian Network, and the concerns of several da’wah figures did not emerge from a vacuum.
The Peace Council initiated by the United States, with a composition of controversial actors and the absence of Palestinian representation, is perceived as reflecting procedural peace separated from substantive justice.
For many Indonesian Muslims, Palestine is not merely a geopolitical issue but a symbol of resistance against modern colonialism.
The government’s optimism, as conveyed by Minister of Religious Affairs Nasaruddin Umar (2/3/2026) through the analogy of the “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah,” emphasizes that strategic diplomacy often requires historical patience.
Efforts to organize national and international seminars through the PTKIN network also reflect a positive effort to build public understanding of President Prabowo Subianto’s international policy direction.
Structural and Cultural Roots
Structurally, global governance is still controlled by superpowers that formulate peace agendas based on power interests. Developing countries often become symbolic legitimacy, not the main architects of solutions.
Indonesia, with its moderate reputation and the world’s largest Muslim population, holds high symbolic value in every global initiative.
When that symbol is attached to a forum whose commitment to justice is questioned, public resistance becomes inevitable.
Culturally, solidarity with Palestine has been deeply rooted in Indonesia’s religious consciousness since the independence era. It lives in sermons, religious education, and humanitarian movements.
Therefore, any policy that moves within the gray area between political reality and moral idealism will always trigger collective unease.
From a political sociology perspective, the reaction of Islamic mass organizations reflects a moral public sphere, a space where policy legitimacy is determined not only by state rationality but also by collective values and ethics.
The president's dialogue with mass organizations is an important point, especially if accompanied by substantive transparency.
In the tradition of Islamic law, peace is never separated from justice. Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi in al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’ah affirmed that Islamic law is oriented toward the protection of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property.
This idea was expanded by Muhammad al-Tahir Ibn Ashur in Maqashid al-Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah, placing social justice as the foundation of modern civilization.
A fiqh principle even states that preventing harm must take precedence over obtaining political benefit (dar’u al-mafasid muqaddam ‘ala jalb al-mashalih), and peace that perpetuates suffering is not true peace. Islamic ethics requires the cessation of aggression as a prerequisite for reconciliation.
Crucial Issues and Solutions
The controversy over the Peace Council is essentially a reflection of the relationship between the state and religious civil society actors.
Indonesia has long been known to possess strong religious social capital, with Islamic mass organizations as strategic partners in development.
Foreign policy perceived as moving without resonance with the values of the ummah risks slowly eroding that social capital. This erosion of trust works within the collective psychological sphere and often escapes policymakers’ attention.
The metaphor is like a suspension bridge over the ravine of global diplomacy. The state stands on one side with its strategic calculations and the ummah on the other with its moral idealism.
The bridge of trust allows both to meet in the middle. Without continuous maintenance, that bridge becomes fragile, even if it does not immediately collapse.
Therefore, the solutions required must be systemic and applicable.
First, the government needs to institutionalize regular foreign policy dialogue with religious mass organizations from the policy formulation stage so that the moral sensitivities of the ummah become an inherent part of policy design, not merely a response when controversy arises.
Second, substantive transparency must be prioritized through open explanations regarding Indonesia’s bargaining position, the limits of diplomatic involvement, and principles of justice that cannot be negotiated, especially concerning Palestine.
Third, Indonesia needs to push for the reformulation of global peace initiatives to be more inclusive, to present Palestinian representation, and to place the end of occupation as a moral prerequisite for credible peace.
Fourth, Islamic mass organizations can expand cross-border civil society diplomacy as a global ethical force that supports Indonesia’s strategic position in international forums.
In the end, the polemic over the Peace Council opens a broad mirror on how strategic policies are read through the lens of public values. Indonesia does not lack diplomatic capacity. What is being tested is the ability to maintain social trust.
True peace grows from global negotiation processes supported by moral legitimacy that lives in the hearts of the people.
When the state and the ummah move in harmony, Indonesia’s diplomacy will gain a distinctive ethical weight rooted deeply in the public conscience.
This controversy should become a moment for maturing foreign policy democracy through honest, participatory dialogue grounded in the value of justice.
This article was published in Kompas on Saturday, February 7, 2026.