By: Marini Ningsih Toemewang
Public appreciation continues to flow following the government’s move under the leadership of President Prabowo Subianto to open broad avenues of dialogue in determining the direction of strategic foreign policy.
The decision to involve Islamic mass organizations and former foreign ministers in discussions regarding Indonesia’s participation in the Board of Peace marks a diplomatic approach that is increasingly inclusive, measured, and rooted in national consensus. This step not only demonstrates the government’s prudence but also strengthens the legitimacy of Indonesia’s foreign policy amid increasingly complex global geopolitical dynamics.
The Board of Peace, an international body initiated to oversee the transition, stabilization, and reconstruction of Gaza in the post-conflict period, became a central issue in a series of meetings at the Presidential Palace in early February 2026. The government views the forum as an additional instrument to advocate more concretely for Palestinian humanitarian interests. In this context, President Prabowo chose a consultative path by inviting Islamic organization leaders, pesantren figures, and senior diplomats to ensure that every strategic decision is built upon comprehensive and balanced understanding.
The involvement of Islamic mass organizations drew widespread attention, reflecting the government’s effort to align state diplomacy with the aspirations of the Muslim community. The Chairman of Pengurus Besar Nahdlatul Ulama (PBNU), Yahya Cholil Staquf, positioned Indonesia’s participation in the Board of Peace as a realistic step to expand the country’s contribution to the Palestinian cause.
This support followed President Prabowo’s comprehensive explanation of global conditions, the situation in Gaza, and the opportunities available for Indonesia to act more progressively and effectively. PBNU assessed that Indonesia’s active involvement should not stop at political symbolism but must be directed toward tangible outcomes that alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.
Yahya also emphasized the importance of vigilance in every diplomatic step. Support from Islamic organizations came with the message that Indonesia must not be swept into global policy currents that could potentially harm Palestinian interests. Within this framework, Indonesia’s participation in the Board of Peace is understood as part of a broader strategy to maintain its alignment while expanding its influence in international negotiation processes.
The government is considered to have successfully convinced religious leaders that realistic diplomacy does not equate to compromising values but rather serves as a means to achieve humanitarian goals more effectively.
Similar support also came from the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI). Its Chairman, Anwar Iskandar, viewed Indonesia’s involvement in the Board of Peace as aligned with the principles of public benefit (maslahah) and universal humanity. MUI believes that the Palestinian struggle requires the active engagement of Muslim-majority countries in global forums to ensure more coordinated efforts in ending the conflict and protecting civilians. Indonesia’s position is considered strategic, as it can bridge the interests of the Muslim world with broader international political dynamics.
In addition to embracing Islamic organizations, President Prabowo also involved former foreign ministers and senior diplomats to test the resilience of the policy from the perspective of experience and expertise. Former Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda assessed the government’s move as mature diplomacy, as it was preceded by consultations with Muslim-majority countries. According to him, the presence of eight Muslim-majority nations within the Board of Peace could serve as a balancing force in decision-making, especially considering that the forum was initiated by the United States.
Hassan argued that Indonesia’s involvement should not be viewed a priori merely because it falls outside the framework of the United Nations. The history of international diplomacy shows that many conflict resolutions have emerged from alternative mechanisms beyond the UN while still producing significant impacts. In this view, the Board of Peace can be utilized as an additional channel to advocate for Palestinian interests, as long as Indonesia maintains the sovereignty of its stance and consistency in humanitarian objectives.
Meetings with former diplomats also served to clarify various public perceptions that had developed. The government was regarded as transparent in explaining that no final decision had yet been made regarding the scale or timing of Indonesia’s financial contribution. Any assistance, it was emphasized, would be directed purely toward humanitarian interests for the people of Gaza, not narrow political agendas. This approach reinforces confidence that the government is not acting hastily but prioritizes prudence and accountability.
More broadly, the involvement of Islamic organizations and former foreign ministers demonstrates the government’s effort to build national consensus before taking further steps on the international stage. Diplomacy is no longer positioned as an exclusive domain of state elites but as a collective process involving moral voices, historical experience, and the nation’s strategic interests. This approach strengthens Indonesia’s position as a sovereign, credible, and consistent actor in defending Palestinian independence.
Ultimately, the continuing appreciation for the government’s move reflects public acceptance of the dialogical diplomacy model pursued by President Prabowo. By uniting the perspectives of Islamic organizations and senior diplomats, the government underscores that Indonesia’s participation in the Board of Peace is not a reactive decision but the result of careful calculation grounded in constitutional values, humanitarian solidarity, and long-term national interests.
This approach places Indonesia in a stronger position to safeguard Palestinian peace while maintaining the dignity of its national diplomacy amid global contestation.
*) International Political Strategy Consultant – National Politika Association