My response to a member of Indonesia’s Regional Representative Council on joining the Board of Peace

I write this to refute an article published by ANTARA, Indonesia’s state owned news agency, and authored by a former Chair of Indonesia’s Regional Representative Council (DPD RI) for 2009 to 2016 and a current member of the DPD RI for 2024 to 2029 from West Sumatra. I respond directly to its arguments. I reject its framing, logic, and conclusions.

The article opens by invoking Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and Mahatma Gandhi to justify engagement with power at any cost. I reject this comparison. Mandela and Tutu spoke about dialogue after apartheid was named as a crime and after sustained global pressure constrained its architects. Gandhi warned against revenge, not against accountability. None of them argued for cooperation with perpetrators while mass killing was ongoing. In Gaza today, civilians are being deliberately destroyed. Naming that reality is not emotional excess. It is a moral and legal necessity. This is not a dispute between equal enemies. It is genocide.

The article frames Gaza as a security crisis that requires strategic maneuvering. I reject that framing. Strategy applies to war. What is happening in Gaza is not war. Gaza has no army, no air force, and no control over borders, food, water, or electricity. Israel controls all of it. That control has been used to impose mass civilian death, starvation, and forced displacement. These acts meet the legal definition of genocide. When genocide is underway, the task is not to be clever. The task is to stop the crime.

The article praises secrecy as diplomatic wisdom. I reject that claim. Secrecy protects power, not victims. International law requires clarity, naming, and prevention. Quiet diplomacy has failed Palestinians for decades. While leaders spoke privately, settlements expanded and Gaza was sealed. Secrecy here does not create leverage. It removes accountability.

The article asks readers to see Donald Trump as a flawed but useful broker. I reject that view. Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. He defunded UNRWA. He endorsed annexation. He rewarded collective punishment. He provided political cover for Israeli impunity. This is not impulsiveness. It is a consistent record. A body created by Trump cannot deliver justice for Palestinians because its founder denies their basic rights. Calling this an opportunity ignores history and evidence.

The article claims there is no better forum, not even the United Nations. I reject this logic. The UN fails to enforce accountability because the United States blocks it. Trump led that obstruction. Replacing multilateral law with a personalized body controlled by the same enabler guarantees the same outcome. Less law. More discretion. More impunity.

READ: FACTBOX – 26 countries named as founding members of Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’

The article urges the public to trust President Prabowo’s intentions. I do not question patriotism. I question alignment. Indonesia’s constitution rejects colonialism. What exists in Palestine is settler colonial rule enforced by military power. Joining a Trump led body that refuses to name genocide contradicts that constitutional principle. Good intentions do not negate structural complicity.

The five safeguards proposed in the article do not resolve the problem. Explaining the strategy to parliament does not correct a flawed strategy. Managing public opinion does not save lives. Withdrawing later does not undo the legitimacy granted now. Promising legal steps toward a Palestinian state ignores that such a state no longer exists in material terms. Conditioning recognition of Israel on Palestinian freedom reverses reality. Israel already enjoys recognition, arms, and protection. Palestinians do not enjoy safety or rights.

The article insists the two state solution remains the only path. I reject this claim. Even recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated openly that there will never be a Palestinian state. This is not rhetoric. It matches policy. Settlements expand. East Jerusalem is annexed. Gaza is destroyed. At the same time, many Palestinians no longer support two states because they see no land, no borders, and no sovereignty left to claim. A state without control over territory or resources is not self-determination.

When both sides that matter reject two states, insisting on it becomes denial. The framework made sense decades ago, when withdrawal and territorial contiguity were still possible. Those conditions no longer exist. What exists today is one continuous territory controlled by one state, governed by unequal legal systems based on identity. Calling this temporary does not make it so.

At this point, the two state solution functions as cover. It delays accountability. It postpones equality. It allows mass violence to be framed as a failure of talks instead of the result of deliberate policy. In Gaza, it allows genocide to be discussed as a tragic detour rather than a foreseeable outcome.

A one state solution reflects reality and law. One state already exists between the river and the sea. The question is not how to divide it. The question is whether it will remain unequal and violent, or become fair and just. A single state with equal citizenship and equal protection under law is not radical. It is the only framework left that aligns with facts.

The article invokes Prabowo’s statement that Israeli security must come first. I reject that premise. Occupation did not produce security. Blockade did not produce safety. Repression produced resistance. Equality removes the structure that generates violence. History supports this conclusion.

The article admits the timing is bad but asks for understanding. Palestinians do not have time. Children do not have time. Law does not have time. While debates over optics continue, people are being erased.

This is not peacebuilding. It is a cover. Trump is not a mediator. He is an enabler. This is not war. It is genocide. Equality in one democratic state is not extremism. It is the only remaining path consistent with reality, international law, and basic human dignity.

OPINION: The logical fallacy of Indonesia paying $1 billion to the Board of Peace

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