Indonesia’s Cabinet Secretary turned Palestine into a public relations campaign

There is something profoundly disturbing about the way Indonesia’s Cabinet Secretary, Teddy Indra Wijaya, chose to defend President Prabowo Subianto’s diplomacy on Palestine. The problem is not that he defended his president; that is, after all, part of his job. The problem is that in trying to elevate Prabowo into a heroic statesman, Teddy ended up revealing a far more troubling reality: the extent to which Indonesian officials have begun mistaking the management of catastrophe for the achievement of justice.

Responding to criticism over Prabowo’s remarkably frequent overseas trips, Teddy offered a list of accomplishments that he apparently believed would silence critics. Indonesia had conducted humanitarian airdrops into Gaza. Indonesia had deployed a hospital ship. Indonesia had provided scholarships for Palestinian students. Indonesia had successfully secured the return of Indonesian citizens detained by Israel. These, according to Teddy, were evidence of Prabowo’s active role in supporting Palestine.

But this is precisely where his argument collapses.

The flaw in Teddy’s reasoning is not merely political. It is moral. It is intellectual. And it is deeply revealing of a dangerous way of thinking about Palestine.

But why should anyone celebrate this?

READ: Over a thousand health professionals demand boycott of Israeli Medical Association over Gaza genocide

Why should Indonesians applaud the fact that food must be dropped from military aircraft into one of the most densely populated territories on earth?

Humanitarian airdrops are not symbols of success. They are symbols of collapse.

Airdrops are what happen when ports fail, roads are inaccessible, hospitals are overwhelmed, and civilian infrastructure lies in ruins.

To celebrate the ability to conduct humanitarian airdrops while saying little about the conditions that make them necessary is like boasting about the efficiency of ambulances while remaining indifferent to the causes of mass casualties.

Or, more bluntly, it is like celebrating one’s skill at applying bandages while refusing to acknowledge the ongoing amputation.

This is not merely a rhetorical mistake. It is a profound moral inversion.

Teddy asks Indonesians to celebrate Indonesia’s ability to manage the consequences of catastrophe while remaining curiously silent about ending the catastrophe itself. In his telling, the measure of success is not whether Palestinians become freer, safer, or closer to sovereignty. Success is measured by how effectively Indonesia can deliver food, deploy medical assistance, and administer relief.

For decades, Indonesia’s support for Palestine was rooted in anti-colonialism. Indonesia’s position was simple: no people should live under occupation, and no nation should be denied sovereignty. The objective was never to make occupation more humane. The objective was to end it. Humanitarian assistance was meant to alleviate suffering until justice could be achieved—not to become a substitute for justice itself.