Palestine, State Policy, and Personal Freedom

by Subhan Yusuf, S.Kom., M.A., observer on geopolitics and public policy

Indonesia's position on Palestine rests on strong historical, constitutional, and cultural foundations. The rejection of colonialism forms part of the nation's fundamental orientation, as reflected in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, while solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for independence has remained one of the most consistent expressions of Indonesia's foreign policy. This support constitutes the position of the state. Yet precisely because Indonesia is a democratic country, the official position of the state cannot be translated into an obligation requiring every citizen, including politicians, to hold identical preferences, sympathies, personal relationships, or political views toward Israel.

This is where a clear distinction must be made between three different domains: the position of the state, the actions of public officials in their official capacity, and the personal preferences of individuals.

Indonesia, as a state, may support Palestinian independence. The Indonesian government may refuse to establish diplomatic relations with Israel under certain conditions. Indonesian diplomacy may actively advocate for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. All of these fall within the domain of state policy.

An Indonesian politician, however, remains a citizen who possesses the freedom to think and express opinions. Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution guarantees every person the freedom to express thoughts and attitudes in accordance with their conscience, as well as the freedom of opinion. Article 28F likewise guarantees the freedom to communicate and disseminate information. These rights are, of course, not absolute and may be limited by law in order to protect the rights of others, morality, security, and public order. Nevertheless, holding a different geopolitical view does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the law or an act of disloyalty to the state ([Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945, Articles 28E, 28F, and 28J]).

Therefore, the relevant question is not whether a politician may like Israel, follow Netanyahu on social media, admire Trump, or maintain personal relationships with individuals or groups associated with Israel. The more relevant question is whether that politician uses public authority to act officially on behalf of Indonesia in a manner that contradicts the law, institutional mandate, or official state policy.

This distinction is crucial.

A member of the legislature is not a diplomat whose every personal expression automatically constitutes an official statement of the state. A senator is not the executive branch, whose personal preferences can automatically be interpreted as a shift in the direction of foreign policy. In a democracy, politicians possess both an institutional identity and an individual identity. When they speak or act on behalf of a state institution, they are bound by the law, their oath of office, and applicable ethical standards. However, when they hold personal beliefs or preferences, the state cannot automatically enter that private sphere simply because those preferences are unpopular. A constitutional state must not become a state that regulates the political affections of its citizens.

If a politician engages in discrimination, spreads hatred, violates the law, abuses public office, or undertakes actions that contradict their oath or institutional authority, then evaluation and sanctions may certainly be justified. However, such evaluation must be based on concrete actions, not on the assumption that a person who likes a particular country necessarily shares an ideology identical to, or endorses, every action undertaken by that country.

Following Netanyahu does not automatically mean endorsing all of Netanyahu's policies. Admiring Trump does not necessarily mean approving every aspect of United States policy toward Gaza. Having personal relationships with Israelis does not mean supporting occupation. Likewise, supporting Palestine's right to independence does not require someone to hate the Israeli people.

We should therefore be cautious about this kind of associative logic, because democracy does not operate according to the principle of guilt by association. Personal preferences must be distinguished from official political action.

Indonesia's support for Palestine will not become stronger simply because the state compels all of its politicians to display identical political preferences. Solidarity with Palestine should be measured by the actions of the state: how Indonesia speaks in international forums, how it advocates for international law, how it provides humanitarian assistance, and how consistently it upholds the principle of anti-colonialism. In my view, these constitute the substantive measures of a foreign policy.

Conversely, demands for the state to "do something" to a politician merely because that individual holds a different geopolitical preference could create a dangerous precedent. Today, the state may be asked to punish a politician considered excessively pro-Israel. Tomorrow, the same logic could be used against politicians considered too pro-American, too pro-China, too pro-Russia, or even excessively critical of the Indonesian government itself.

Democracy should not depend on whether an opinion is popular or unpopular. The protection of freedom of expression is tested precisely when someone expresses a view that the majority may dislike.

Indonesia can firmly support Palestine while simultaneously recognizing that an Indonesian citizen, including a politician, retains the freedom to hold different personal views. These two principles are not mutually contradictory.

Indeed, maintaining a distinction between the position of the state and individual freedom is itself a sign of democratic maturity. The state has the authority to determine its foreign policy through constitutional and institutional mechanisms. However, it does not possess a mandate to intrude into every personal preference held by its citizens, so long as those preferences do not translate into unlawful conduct or an abuse of public power.

Supporting Palestinian independence remains a political and moral position that Indonesia can continue to uphold firmly. Yet defending Palestine does not require Indonesia to abandon or surrender its own democratic principles at home.

As a culturally diverse and politically mature society, Indonesia does not need to regulate whom a politician may admire, which countries they may visit, whose social media accounts they may follow, or what geopolitical views they are permitted to hold. What should be regulated is the exercise of power, compliance with the law, the prohibition of discrimination, and the accountability of public officials. In my view, that is where the proper and healthy boundary between the state and the individual should be drawn.