A troubling trend: The rise of pro-Israel voices in Indonesia

In recent years, Indonesia has witnessed an unusual and disquieting trend: the rise of public figures openly supporting Israel, in stark contrast to the country’s long-standing and deeply rooted support for Palestinian self-determination. Chief among these voices is Monique Rijkers, a Jakarta-based media personality and self-described Jewish Indonesian who has positioned herself as the country’s most visible pro-Israel activist. Her growing platform—ranging from her YouTube channel FaktaIsrael to appearances on national television—signals not only a shift in media discourse, but also a challenge to the moral clarity that has defined Indonesia’s position on Palestine for decades.

Rijkers is no fringe figure. With over 278,000 subscribers on her YouTube channel, she presents a slick, persuasive narrative defending Israeli actions and policies, including military operations in Gaza. One of her most viral videos, “Rekam Jejak Manipulasi Ambulans oleh Hamas” (Hamas’ Ambulance Manipulation Track Record), attempts to discredit the widely documented humanitarian crisis in Gaza by painting Palestinian resistance as manipulative and deceptive. The comments section on this video reveals something deeply unsettling: a growing number of Indonesians echoing her sentiments, not in defence of peace, but in alignment with Israeli militarism.

Her activism extends beyond mere online rhetoric. In 2017, Rijkers attended the Christian Media Summit in Jerusalem, where she was the sole Indonesian among a curated group of 130 international participants. The summit, organised by Israel’s Government Press Office, served as a platform for disseminating state-approved narratives—which Rijkers uncritically amplified. During a staged tour of the West Bank, she fixated on technicalities like the fact that only 5 per cent of Israel’s 629-kilometer segregation barrier is a concrete wall, as if this minor detail somehow mitigated its oppressive function. She marvelled at the ordinariness of President Reuven Rivlin’s residence, contrasting it with Indonesia’s presidential palace to paint Israel as a model of accessibility—a superficial comparison that ignores how Israel’s “open” institutions coexist with systemic exclusion of Palestinians. Through these carefully framed encounters, Rijkers parrots Israeli propaganda, whitewashing apartheid while erasing the violence of occupation.

In 2021, she took her controversial rhetoric a step further. On her Facebook page, she proposed relocating Gazans to Indonesia to form a 35th province named “Gaza.” In this bizarre geopolitical fantasy, the Gaza Strip would be returned to Egypt and the West Bank left to the Palestinian Authority under Fatah—because, in her words, Fatah “doesn’t launch rockets at Israel.” Such a suggestion is not only logistically absurd but fundamentally insulting. It treats occupied, besieged people as pawns to be relocated for the sake of Israeli comfort, erasing their historical, cultural, and emotional connection to their land.

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

What is perhaps most alarming is the platform she’s been given. Rijkers has appeared on TVOne, one of Indonesia’s most prominent news channels, and has even been invited to speak at Islamic boarding schools such as Ponpes Al-Zaytun. This legitimization of pro-Israel activism in a country where public support for Palestine is historically strong and widespread should raise red flags about whose voices are being elevated—and why.

Another figure pushing a similar narrative—though with far less influence—is Flemming Pangabean, an Indonesian national reportedly living in Israel. He promotes Israel as a land of opportunity for Indonesian workers, touting high wages and encouraging migration. He has even envisioned 100 young Batak Christians—an ethnic group primarily from the highlands of North Sumatra—studying in Israel to prepare for a demographic shift in their homeland. Additionally, Flemming has promoted Israeli universities offering scholarships.

Yet his digital footprint suggests performative rather than impactful motives. His social media engagement is low, and his credibility among Indonesians remains questionable. While Pangabean’s rhetoric lacks Rijkers’ polish and reach, it still contributes to broader efforts to normalize Israeli policy within Indonesian discourse.

Both individuals have called on Indonesia to pursue formal diplomatic relations with Israel, arguing that such ties would benefit Indonesia economically and technologically. Rijkers in particular has made the case that Israel’s expertise in agriculture and cybersecurity could help modernize Indonesian industries. She even suggests this could be part of former President Joko Widodo’s legacy, stating that it would bring “new investors” and mark a shift in Indonesia’s global posture.

But this argument misses a fundamental point: normalization is betrayal. The economic carrots dangled by Rijkers and Pangabean come at the cost of legitimizing an apartheid system. The call to “join the peace train” ignores that Palestinians are still under blockade, occupation, and systemic discrimination. It assumes peace can be achieved without accountability, without dismantling illegal settlements, and without acknowledging the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees.

The soft power of the media is not lost on Rijkers, who criticizes Indonesian journalism for being too sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative. She claims domestic media rely too heavily on foreign sources, often citing Palestinian or Turkish agencies like Anadolu, which she deems biased. She advocates for more journalists to attend Israeli-hosted events like the Christian Media Summit to get “both sides” of the story. Yet, her version of “balance” is one that equates state-sponsored bombings with resistance, and occupation with order.

The irony here is profound. In a nation where the spirit of anti-colonialism still lives in the memory of its own struggle for independence, figures like Rijkers and Pangabean advocate for alignment with a settler-colonial state. Their rhetoric reframes occupation as innovation, resistance as terrorism, and solidarity as naivety.

The majority of the Indonesian public has thus far not bought into these narratives, steadfastly reaffirming their support for Palestinian statehood and firmly rejecting any plans to normalize ties with Israel. Yet, as figures like Rijkers gain wider platforms—and as their views gradually enter public discourse—it becomes increasingly urgent to reaffirm that the moral arc of justice must not be bent by opportunism or geopolitical convenience.

To be clear, no one is denying Rijkers or Pangabean their right to free speech. But we must be vigilant about the platforms we give them and the narratives they promote. Pro-Israel activism in Indonesia is not just a foreign policy issue; it is a test of our collective memory, our moral compass, and our commitment to standing with the oppressed, not the oppressor.

Let us not allow slick videos or diplomatic illusions to distract us from the horrifying reality on the ground: a people facing genocide, still waiting for justice, and still counting on our unwavering solidarity.

OPINION: Indonesia shouldn’t trade Palestine for OECD membership

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