Response to Mr. Zulfikar and Ms. Aryanti: Palestinian lives matter

I am intrigued by the writing of Mr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat and Ms. Shafa Kalila Aryanti  titled “Indonesia’s cabinet secretary is sanitizing genocide in Gaza” published on 7 March 2026.

On 5 March 2026, Indonesia’s cabinet secretary, Mr. Teddy Indra Wijaya, was quoted to have stated that the cessation of conflict in Gaza cannot occur in instantaneous manner. While there may remain several clashes, the number have decreased significantly. He said that the numbers have decreased to be around 600 – 1000 people as compared to around 70.000 people just between 2024 – 2025. 

Mr. Rakhmat and Ms. Aryanti framed Mr. Wijaya’s statements as sanitizing genocide in Gaza. Their framing is problematic and troublesome at the same time for the following reasons.

First, Mr. Wijaya’s statement reflects a factual observation that the casualties have significantly decreased and not a moral endorsement of continued violence. In situations of armed conflict, policy makers and humanitarian actors frequently assess developments using quantitative indicators, including casualty trends, displacement figures, and humanitarian access. Such metrics are used not to diminish the value of human life but to measure whether violence is escalating or declining.

Recognizing that deaths have decreased from tens of thousands to significantly lower figures does not imply that the remaining casualties are acceptable. Rather, it indicates that diplomatic interventions, to which Indonesia proudly took part in, are successfully contributing to the reduction of hostilities. This is precisely the objective and expected results of international mediation and ceasefire arrangements. To name a few such diplomatic interventions span from the French-Saudi initiative that produced the New York Declaration in which Indonesia and Italy were championing the Working Group on Security Guarantees for Palestine and Israel under the initiative, the Sharm el Sheikh meeting last year and countless of others.

READ: Indonesia suspends participation in Board of Peace following attack on Iran

In other words, acknowledging a reduction in casualties is not a normalization of violence, but that steps toward de-escalation may generate measurable humanitarian effects.

Second, Mr. Wijaya’s statement that violence cannot stop instantly reflects historical reality in conflict resolution.

Armed conflicts rarely end overnight, even when diplomatic agreements are reached. Ceasefires, de-escalation arrangements and humanitarian pause often lead first to a gradual reduction in hostilities, rather than an immediate and complete cessation.

In diplomacy, one inch of progress is progress in itself. It is understandably frustrating when one is unable to appreciate such an intricate work of diplomacy.

In practice for instance, the Good Friday Agreement concluded in 1998 in Northern Ireland did not immediately eliminate violence. The Dayton Accords made in 1995 that ended the Bosnian war were preceded by periods of declining but ongoing violence. The Oslo Accords which resulted in the first ever legal recognition by Israel towards Palestinian Authority did not resolve the conflict right away. But these agreements or the recent ceasefire agreement in Israel-Palestinian context were not made in vain. They did in fact result in the reduction of human casualties.

Mr. Wijaya’s statement therefore reflects a realistic understanding of how conflict de-escalation occurs, rather than an acceptance of ongoing suffering.

Third, Mr. Rakhmat and Ms. Aryanti’s opinion suggests that referring to casualty reductions reduces human lives to statistics. To the contrary, in humanitarian practice, data is essential for protecting lives. International organizations, including the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and humanitarian NGOs, regularly track casualty figures precisely because they provide evidence of whether conditions are improving or deteriorating.

Because without such data, humanitarian agencies cannot assess needs, mediators cannot evaluate ceasefire effectiveness and the international community cannot measure whether diplomatic engagement is having any impact at all. Recognizing that fewer people are dying is therefore not a denial of human suffering. It is an acknowledgement that efforts to reduce violence may be saving lives.

It is important to understand the world as it is while working our way to realize the world as we wished it to be. Indonesia’s diplomacy on Palestine issue under President Prabowo’s administration is one of principled, consistent and pragmatic at the same time. Indonesia respects Palestinian agency of their future and of their lives. Palestinian lives matter.

OPINION: Indonesia’s cabinet secretary is sanitising genocide in Gaza

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