On 16 September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel released a 72-page report concluding that Israeli authorities and security forces have committed—and continue to commit—acts constituting the genocide against Palestinians. The findings mark a grave moment in international law and human conscience, demanding urgent reflection and action from states worldwide. 

Legal Obligations Under International Law 

Among its conclusions, the Commission reaffirmed a foundational principle: all states bear the responsibility to prevent and punish genocide. For states party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this duty is explicit. For non-signatory states, such as Indonesia, the obligation arises under erga omnes norms of customary international law—binding duties owed to the international community as a whole when the most serious crimes are at stake. 

This means that Indonesia, despite not being a party to the Genocide Convention, is legally bound to take all reasonable steps to prevent and halt genocidal acts. These steps include refraining from transferring weapons or technologies that could be used to commit genocide, and cooperating with international mechanisms aimed at accountability and prevention. 

Trade, Diplomacy, and the Ethics of Engagement 

Despite this clear legal framework, many states continue to normalize relations with Israel, implicitly overlooking the gravity of its actions.

Indonesia, while maintaining no formal diplomatic ties, engaged in bilateral trade amounting to $267.8 million in 2023—importing $31.8 million and exporting $236 million worth of goods. Over the past five years, Indonesia’s exports to Israel have grown at an annualized rate of 3.67%, suggesting a deepening economic relationship. 

More troubling are reports that, since the escalation of Israeli military operations on 7 October 2023, the Indonesian government has explored establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, allegedly as part of its bid to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Within civil society, a growing number of public figures have voiced support for such ties, citing potential economic and technological benefits. 

This trend raises a critical ethical question: can economic pragmatism justify engagement with a state accused of genocide? And if not, does continued trade—even absent formal diplomacy—amount to complicity? 

Complicity Through Omission 

Some may argue that Indonesia’s actions do not constitute direct support for genocide. After all, the primary exports—leather footwear, palm oil, and video displays—are not clearly linked to military operations. Public condemnations by Indonesian officials may also suggest a stance of disapproval towards the genocide. 

However, international law does not require direct causality to establish complicity. The absence of a specific intent or material contribution does not absolve a state from its duty to prevent genocide. As the Commission emphasized, individuals and corporations must refrain from aiding, assisting, or inciting genocidal acts. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has further clarified that personal motives—such as economic gain or political advantage—do not negate genocidal intent. 

Moreover, the Commission’s report suggests that a state may be held accountable for both acts and omissions attributable to its organs. In this light, Indonesia’s failure to take proactive measures—such as suspending trade, publicly condemning genocidal conduct, or supporting international accountability—could be interpreted as tacit endorsement. 

Indonesia’s current posture—marked by economic engagement and diplomatic ambiguity—risks normalizing atrocity through omission. Even if its exports are not directly used in military campaigns, the broader message is clear: economic interests are being prioritized over moral and legal obligations. 

The Commission’s report is not merely a legal document—it is a moral indictment. In the face of genocide, neutrality is not an option. Indonesia must decide whether it will stand with the victims of atrocity or remain complicit through silence and commerce. The stakes are not just legal—they are existential.