Indonesia issued 51 visas to Israelis. That choice has moral consequences

Indonesia has issued 51 calling visas to Israeli nationals. The information did not come from a press conference or a parliamentary debate, but from immigration intelligence data covering applications approved through 30 November 2025. According to that data, Israel ranks fourth among recipients of Indonesia’s most restrictive visa category—behind Nigeria, Somalia, and Afghanistan, and ahead of Liberia and even South Korea, which recorded just one such case. During the same period, 470 calling visa recommendations were issued in total, alongside 22 rejections. These numbers are not incidental. They are policy.

Calling visas are reserved for nationals of countries deemed high-risk across ideological, political, security, and immigration criteria. For states without diplomatic relations with Indonesia—Israel among them—the process is more tightly controlled still. Entry is permitted only through two airports: Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in Jakarta and I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport in Bali. Applications are reviewed by a formal coordination team that includes immigration authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, intelligence agencies, the police, and the military. Officials stress that there is no discretion involved, no unilateral decision-making, no politics—only procedure.

This insistence on procedure is precisely the problem.

The government wants the public, and the international community, to see the issuance of visas to Israeli nationals as a matter of border management rather than moral choice. It points to the limited purposes cited—business discussions, purchases, exhibitions, meetings, tourism, and private visits by elderly travellers—and insists that these entries are therefore inconsequential. It emphasises that the visas are monitored from pre-arrival to post-departure under regulations finalised in 2024 and 2025, suggesting that administrative rigor preserves the state’s moral position.

But genocide does not become morally tolerable because it is processed through a regulatory system.

READ: Italy, Indonesia to send forces to Gaza under strict conditions 

Indonesia’s constitutional position on colonialism is unequivocal. The 1945 Constitution rejects all forms of occupation as incompatible with humanity and justice. The country’s guiding ideology, Pancasila, enshrines “just and civilised humanity” as a foundational principle. These commitments are not rhetorical. They emerged from Indonesia’s own struggle against foreign domination and have long shaped its stance on Palestine. For decades, Indonesia has refused diplomatic relations with Israel not out of symbolism, but because Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land violates the very premises on which the Indonesian state was built.

Today, that occupation has escalated into something far worse. Gaza is experiencing mass killing, engineered starvation, forced displacement, and the systematic destruction of civilian life. International legal discourse has begun to reflect this reality. What Palestinians have long endured is now the subject of proceedings in international courts and scrutiny by United Nations mechanisms. This is not a conventional war, nor a tragic symmetry of violence. It is the destruction of a people under occupation. Genocide is no longer a fringe accusation. It is a serious legal claim, increasingly linked to the recognition that economic activity itself can enable mass atrocity.

This is why the claim that calling visas do not amount to normalization fails to persuade. Normalisation is not a single event that occurs when embassies open or diplomatic ties are formalised. It is a process. It advances through incremental administrative decisions that make engagement routine and resistance symbolic. Allowing Israeli nationals to enter Indonesia—some explicitly for business purposes—while Gaza is being obliterated sends a clear message: that genocide is not disqualifying, that interaction may proceed so long as it is tightly managed.

READ: Romania deports Israeli settler under EU sanctions 

Globally, many institutions have drawn the opposite conclusion. Pension funds in Norway and the Netherlands have divested from companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements. Banks in Denmark have excluded Israeli financial institutions over human rights risks. Universities have withdrawn investment ties. Major corporations have exited the occupied territories. These decisions are no longer framed as radical acts of protest. They are embedded in mainstream approaches to socially responsible investment and environmental, social, and governance standards. The premise is increasingly accepted: economic engagement that sustains or normalises illegal occupation and mass violence is itself unethical.

Indonesia’s policy runs counter to this emerging norm. By framing visas as a technical “instrument of control,” the state seeks to insulate itself from moral accountability. Yet control does not absolve complicity. Facilitating entry, mobility, and limited economic interaction for citizens of an occupying power accused of genocide is not a neutral act. It is a decision to lower the moral threshold.

Defenders of the policy emphasize transparency, inter-agency coordination, and the absence of diplomatic recognition. They note that calling visas apply to other countries, that the list is dynamic, and that states have been added and removed based on shifting risk assessments—Cameroon, for example, was once included and later removed. But Israel is not Cameroon. No other country on the calling visa list is currently destroying a civilian population under military occupation while defying international law with such consistency. Context matters.

Fifty-one visas may appear minor. They are not. They are precedents—issued quietly, justified bureaucratically, and defended procedurally. This is how moral clarity erodes: not through declarations, but through exceptions.

Indonesia continues to insist that its position has not changed. But when a state that constitutionally rejects colonialism facilitates engagement with a colonial power amid genocide, words are no longer enough. In moments like this, refusal is not extremism. It is the minimum expression of principle.

OPINION: Indonesia must speak loudly: If the US can arrest Maduro, it must arrest Netanyahu 

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