Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday justified its country’s participation in the Board of Peace as part of efforts to support Palestine and aid Gaza’s reconstruction. Spokesperson Vahd Nabyl Mulachela affirmed Jakarta’s hope the Board might lead to an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, this stance came in response to criticism from Amnesty International Indonesia, which earlier argued the Board is fundamentally flawed. In a statement delivered in Jakarta following an event with U.N. expert on occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese, Amnesty’s director Usman Hamid urged Indonesia to reconsider its involvement, citing U.S. dominance over the mechanism and its failure to protect Palestinian civilians from Israeli military operations.
The Board of Peace’s structure, a subject of scrutiny, allocates significant authority to its U.S.-appointed chairman, Donald Trump, according to Neil Quilliam, a Chatham House researcher. Daily governance is managed by a Gaza Executive Board excluding Palestinian representation, while a foreign military force oversees security. A Palestinian committee, vetted and approved by Israel under U.S. supervision, exists but wields minimal influence, Quilliam noted.
There is a Palestinian committee of 15 people, but Israel checked and approved its members under American supervision. In simple words, outsiders choose who speaks for Palestinians, and those Palestinians get very little power.
Quilliam highlighted that the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the Board does not guarantee statehood but conditions it on prerequisites such as Gaza’s disarmament and Palestinian Authority reforms. Until at least 2027, Gaza and the West Bank remain divided, with the Board’s authority limited to Gaza. Critics warn this timeline may render any prospects for a unified Palestinian state unattainable.
The reconstruction framework, designed by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, proposes new districts modeled after Dubai, prioritizing development over Palestinian sovereignty. Quilliam criticized the plan for marginalizing Palestinian input and prioritizing areas like New Rafah, currently under Israeli military control, where residency privileges may be determined by external actors. This approach risks creating a bifurcated Gaza: one zone of controlled development and another neglected by international and local stakeholders.
In the West Bank, Israel’s recent policy shifts, including expanded settlement activities and land expropriation, further undermine the Board’s relevance. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s declaration to “bury” the concept of a Palestinian state underscores systemic challenges beyond the Board’s mandate. Despite Indonesia’s stated commitment to Palestinian solidarity, its participation risks legitimizing a process critics argue marginalizes Palestinian agency. The ministry’s assertion of influence through internal advocacy contrasts with its own pause in Board-related discussions, raising questions about Jakarta’s strategic impact.
Amid ongoing violence, including Hamas appeals to halt Israeli operations and settler-driven displacement in the West Bank, critics contend the Board prioritizes managing crises over achieving sustainable peace. Amnesty International advocates for Indonesia to leverage its U.N. platform, collaborate with global allies, and push for accountability measures against violations of international law. Quilliam emphasizes that concrete diplomatic pressure, rather than symbolic gestures, remains essential to safeguarding Palestinian rights and statehood aspirations.
Indonesia’s historical advocacy for Palestinian self-determination at the U.N. warrants reassessment of its current alignment with mechanisms deemed ineffective or exclusionary. Exiting the Board could signal a renewed commitment to principled international engagement.
