http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2017/01/25/in-defense-of-istibsyaroh.html
In defense of Istibsyaroh Niruban Balachandran Studying public administration at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Jakarta | Wed, January 25, 2017 | 05:40 pm Israeli President Reuven Rivlin uploaded this picture on Twitter, Jan. 18 2017, with caption, "Speaking with Muslim leaders from #Indonesia. #Israel has no war with #Islam. Indeed, we are not doomed to live together, it is our destinty." (Twitter.com/PresidentRuvi/File) When I learned last Friday that the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) would grill council member and Islamic scholar Ibu Istibsyaroh and seven of her colleagues for their recent study visit to Israel, I felt concerned for her well-being. MUI secretary-general Anwar Abbas has hinted at Istibsyaroh’s dismissal. In addition, MUI leader Muhyidin Junaidi has asked Istibsyaroh to resign from her MUI position as chair of the Commission for Women’s and Families’ Empowerment. Although the MUI’s concerns about the Palestinian people are valid, its negative rhetoric against Istibsyaroh and her delegation colleagues is a cause for worry. In his response to my email, Jeremy Jones of the Australia/ Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) that organized the study visit said the event was held “to honor the memory and legacy of Abdurrahman Wahid [Gus Dur]”. The late former president Gus Dur was on the board of the Jerusalem-based Elijah Institute and of the Peres Peace Center. “They honored Gus Dur’s teachings; they gave Israelis and Palestinians they met Indonesian perspectives; they met Jews, Muslims and Christians in Israel and the Palestinian authority,” Jones said. In 2015 the group of Indonesians met Shimon Peres, but as he is no longer alive the president of Israel sought to replicate his role in welcoming Indonesian Muslims and to hear their views, Jones added. Dialogue, learning, prayer, education, debate, cooperation — all of these seem like fine intentions in the spirit of peace in the Middle East. It is also worth noting that former president Gus Dur was born, died and buried in his hometown of Jombang, East Java, which is very close to where Istibsyaroh is from. Perhaps she also felt an emotional connection with the visit’s primary objective. There is no legal ban on Indonesian citizens traveling to Israel. Annually, tens of thousands of Indonesians visit Israel. In 2012, nearly a dozen Indonesian Muslim leaders traveled on the famed “Mission for Peace and Understanding” interfaith trip to Israel and the Holy Land, with their Jewish and Christian counterparts. In 2008, the Indonesia Surgeon’s Association sent an official delegation of 23 Indonesian doctors to Tel Aviv, to be trained by Israelis in the “management of multicasualty incidents”, largely in preparation for potential terror attacks, disasters and other crises. A number of Indonesian officials, including House of Representatives member Tantowi Yahya, have also openly visited Israel over the past few years. Indeed, Vice President Jusuf Kalla has stated that there is no reason Indonesia should not have closer ties to Israel. “We can’t be a mediator if we don’t know Israel. We must be close with both Israel and Palestine,” he explained in 2014. Abbas said the MUI condemned the latest visit of Indonesian Muslims to Israel because of its colonization practices, which are against the preamble of the 1945 Constitution and therefore Indonesia refused to open diplomatic relations with it. There are a number of problems with this argument. Leaving aside the fact that neither the United Nations, Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or other multilateral organizations have officially delineated Gaza or the West Bank as colonies, only the preamble of the Indonesian Constitution states this. This, of course, is a post-World War II, Dutch-era statement whose legal mandate is still open to interpretation in 2017 and has not precluded Jakarta from engaging in formal diplomatic relations with other states accused of colonization. A second problem with this argument is that the MUI’s condemnation neglects the fact that not only did Istibsyaroh meet the Palestinian authority and Muslim leaders on her trip but she also evidently strived to educate Israelis about her country during a meeting with Israeli President Reuben Rivlin. It also underscores her ostensible patriotism. Yet another problem with condemning the visit “on behalf of anything” underscores the numerous missed peacebuilding opportunities that will occur if Indonesians and Israelis do not interact with each other. For example, if Istibsyaroh helped amplify Jakarta’s voice and interests in Israel, or even helped pave the way for a successful two-state solution, then it is unhelpful for the MUI to condemn the study visit wholesale. Finally, the MUI’s reaction to the Israel study visit now raises a pertinent question about whether, in retrospect, the lack of Indonesia-Israel diplomatic relations has actually helped the Palestinians. Based on several decades of evidence, although Jakarta has helped establish an embassy, hospital, OIC support and capacity building projects in Gaza, its approach to the two-state solution has been unsuccessful. A twostate solution cannot be negotiated with only one of the parties. Instead, Palestinian statecraft is more likely to be efficacious if Indonesia pragmatically opens diplomatic ties with Israel. The pro-Israel Donald Trump administration in the United States practically necessitates this strategic shift. Indonesian engagement with Israel is not a radical foreign policy. For example, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt already have normal diplomatic ties with both Israel and Palestine, which allows these three Muslim-majority states to be more influential in the Middle East peace process than other countries are and to effectively advocate on behalf of the Palestinian people. In total, 157 of the other 192 UN member states have normal bilateral relations with Israel, including the Muslim-majority states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Maldives, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The MUI’s reaction demonstrates how Indonesia’s foreign policy requires an unflinchingly honest national conversation about Indonesia’s role and effectiveness in the Middle East. The study visit to Israel by Istibsyaroh and her MUI colleagues was legal, ethical and constitutional, and it should be praised by both Indonesians and Palestinians. If Indonesia wants to contribute to peace in the Middle East, more frequent visits with dialogue, learning, prayer, education, debate and cooperation with Israelis should be nurtured and encouraged.
