Indonesia must not become a platform for Israeli business

Israeli companies are increasingly operating in Indonesia. They are using Indonesian locations, Indonesian creative talent and Indonesian commercial networks to promote their businesses in a country that does not recognise Israel and has stood with Palestine for decades. This growing commercial presence deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.

SwiftOptics provides a clear example. The Israeli eyewear company describes itself as an “extreme eyewear” brand and has produced promotional content in Indonesia, including a video filmed in Nias with Indonesian creator @frank_videography. Its vice president, Yehonatan Dadon, has also posted photographs and videos from Nias, Lombok and Bali.

This is not simply about an eyewear advertisement. It is about the increasingly visible presence of Israeli business in Indonesia and the gap between that reality and Indonesia’s longstanding policy towards Israel.

Indonesia has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and has consistently supported Palestinian statehood and Palestinian rights. It has opposed occupation and colonialism and maintained its support for the Palestinian struggle despite decades of international pressure to normalise relations with Israel.

That position should not be undermined by commercial activity taking place largely outside public attention.

The issue is particularly urgent as Palestinians continue to endure the devastating consequences of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, millions have faced displacement and civilian infrastructure has been destroyed on a massive scale. In that context, the increasing operation of Israeli companies in Indonesia cannot simply be dismissed as ordinary business.

Indonesia’s immigration system already demonstrates how porous its restrictions can be. Because Indonesia does not recognise Israel, Israeli citizens cannot use the ordinary visa arrangements available to many other nationalities. They must instead apply for a “calling visa”, a more restrictive process intended for nationalities Indonesia considers security risks.

Yet Indonesian immigration authorities have acknowledged that Israel ranked fourth among nationalities receiving the calling visa, behind Nigeria, Somalia and Afghanistan. Of 470 applications during one recent period, only 22 were rejected. Approximately 95 per cent were approved.

There is another route around the system. Israeli citizens who hold passports from countries such as Portugal, Germany or Greece can enter Indonesia using those passports, meaning their Israeli nationality may not necessarily appear in Indonesian immigration records.

There was a case involving two people with reported past ties to the Israeli military who were operating a luxury villa business in Bali using European passports. Their Israeli background reportedly did not appear in Indonesian records. The case illustrates a wider problem: Indonesia’s restrictions can be weakened when nationality and commercial activity are separated across different documents and corporate arrangements.

The increasing presence of Israeli companies raises the same concern from another direction. Even when Israeli commercial activity does not involve formal diplomatic recognition, it can still create the practical conditions of normalisation.

A company enters the market. It hires local talent. It films in Indonesian locations. It builds commercial relationships. Its products appear in Indonesian media and social-media feeds. Over time, Israeli business becomes familiar and ordinary.

That is how normalisation happens.

Israel’s international presence is not built through diplomacy alone. Consumer brands, tourism, technology, culture, sport and lifestyle marketing all contribute to an image of Israel as an ordinary, globally integrated country. The political reality of occupation and Palestinian dispossession can then be pushed into the background.

Indonesia should not help build that image.

The government should urgently examine the scale of Israeli commercial activity in Indonesia, including advertising, business partnerships, investment and other commercial operations. It should determine whether existing restrictions are being circumvented through foreign passports, corporate structures, local partnerships or other arrangements. Indonesian authorities should also make the relevant information available to the public.

The issue is not whether every Israeli company operating in Indonesia has violated Indonesian law. The issue is whether Indonesia is allowing a broader process of commercial normalisation to develop without examining what it means for the country’s foreign policy.

If Indonesia rejects normalisation with Israel because of its commitment to Palestinian rights, that position cannot end at diplomatic relations. It must also be reflected in how Indonesia approaches Israeli commercial activity.

Indonesians deserve to know which foreign companies are operating in their country, where those companies come from and how they are using Indonesian territory and resources to expand their businesses. An Israeli company using Nias, Bali or Lombok as a commercial asset is not merely participating in an economic market. It is also benefiting from Indonesia’s natural and cultural capital.

Indonesia has no shortage of local companies, creators or international commercial opportunities. It does not need Israeli businesses to develop its tourism industry, promote its beaches or give its creative sector global exposure.

What Indonesia does have is a clear political position on Palestine.

That position should carry weight.

As Israeli companies increasingly operate in Indonesia, Jakarta must ensure that its foreign policy is not quietly hollowed out by commercial normalisation. Supporting Palestine cannot mean one thing in international statements and another thing in the marketplace.

Indonesia should not become a platform for Israeli business to establish itself as ordinary, acceptable and permanent while Palestinians continue to pay the price of genocide.

Indonesia has stood with Palestine for decades. Its commercial policies should stand there too.

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