Israeli businesses are expanding their operations in Indonesia, using Indonesian locations, creative talent and commercial networks to promote their brands in a country that does not recognise Israel and has long supported Palestine. This growing commercial footprint deserves far closer scrutiny than it has received.
SwiftOptics offers a clear example. The Israeli eyewear company, which describes itself as an “extreme eyewear” brand, has produced promotional material in Indonesia, including a video filmed in Nias with Indonesian creator @frank_videography. Its vice president, Yehonatan Dadon, has also shared photographs and videos from Nias, Lombok and Bali.
This is not merely about an eyewear campaign. It reflects the increasingly visible presence of Israeli business in Indonesia and the widening gap between that reality and Indonesia’s longstanding policy toward Israel and Palestine.
Indonesia has consistently refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and has maintained its support for Palestinian statehood and Palestinian rights. It has opposed occupation and colonialism, and has continued to back the Palestinian cause despite years of international pressure to normalise ties with Israel.
That position should not be quietly weakened by commercial activity taking place beyond the attention of the public.
The matter is especially urgent as Palestinians continue to suffer the devastating consequences of Israel’s assault in Gaza, widely condemned as genocide. Thousands of civilians have been killed, millions displaced and civilian infrastructure destroyed on a massive scale. In that context, the expanding operations of Israeli companies in Indonesia cannot be treated as routine business.
Indonesia’s immigration system already shows how porous its restrictions can be. Because Indonesia does not recognise Israel, Israeli citizens cannot access the ordinary visa arrangements available to many other nationalities. Instead, they must apply for a “calling visa”, a more restrictive process intended for nationals Indonesia considers potential security risks.
Indonesian immigration authorities have acknowledged, however, that Israel ranked fourth among nationalities receiving the calling visa, behind Nigeria, Somalia and Afghanistan. During one recent period, 470 applications were submitted and only 22 were rejected, meaning roughly 95 per cent were approved.
There is also another way around the system. Israeli citizens who hold passports from countries such as Portugal, Germany or Greece can enter Indonesia using those documents, meaning their Israeli nationality may not appear in Indonesian immigration records.
One reported case involved two people with alleged past links to the Israeli military who were running a luxury villa business in Bali using European passports. Their Israeli background reportedly did not appear in Indonesian records. The case highlights a broader concern: Indonesia’s restrictions can be weakened when nationality, ownership and commercial activity are obscured across different documents, passports and corporate arrangements.
The growing presence of Israeli companies raises the same concern from another direction. Even when Israeli commercial activity does not amount to formal diplomatic recognition, it can still create the practical conditions for normalisation.
A company enters the market, hires local talent, films in Indonesian locations and builds commercial relationships. Its products then appear across Indonesian media and social media feeds. Over time, Israeli business becomes familiar, visible and ordinary.
That is how normalisation takes root.
Israel’s international image is not shaped by diplomacy alone. Consumer brands, tourism, technology, culture, sport and lifestyle marketing all help present Israel as a normal, globally integrated country. In the process, the political reality of occupation and Palestinian dispossession can be pushed into the background.
Indonesia should not help construct that image.
The government should urgently assess the scale of Israeli commercial activity in Indonesia, including advertising, business partnerships, investment and other operations. It should determine whether existing restrictions are being bypassed through foreign passports, corporate structures, local partnerships or other arrangements. Indonesian authorities should also make relevant information available to the public.
The question is not whether every Israeli company operating in Indonesia has broken Indonesian law. The real issue is whether Indonesia is allowing a wider process of commercial normalisation to develop without properly considering 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 stop 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 they come from and how they are using Indonesian territory, talent and resources to grow their businesses. An Israeli company using Nias, Bali or Lombok as a commercial asset is not simply taking part in a 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 sector, promote its beaches or give its creative industries wider exposure.
What Indonesia does have is a clear political position on Palestine.
That position must carry real weight.
As Israeli companies become more active 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 in the marketplace.
Indonesia should not become a platform for Israeli business to present itself as ordinary, acceptable and permanent while Palestinians continue to pay the price of mass violence, displacement and destruction.
Indonesia has stood with Palestine for decades. Its commercial policies should stand there too.