MUHAMMADIYAH.OR.ID, JAKARTA — Speaking at a recent Islamic Sermon of Muhammadiyah Central Board, Hajriyanto Y. Thohari, Indonesia’s former ambassador to Lebanon, presented a sweeping analysis of Middle Eastern conflicts through historical, political, and religious lenses.
Addressing an audience at Muhammadiyah Central Board forum on Friday (24/4), Hajriyanto argued that discussions of the region cannot be separated from the faith dimension within Muslim communities. From an early age, he said, Muslim are taught to pray for the well being and strength of the ummah.
As a result, he emphasized, the Middle East conflict is not merely a political issue. It also reflects religious solidarity and moral positioning.
Colonial Legacies and Shifting Narratives
Hajriyanto traced the term “Middle East” to the early 20th century, noting that it emerged during Western colonial expansion following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Prior to that, he said, the region was broadly understood as part of Arab lands under Ottoman rule.
In the aftermath of the empire’s defeat, European powers divided the Arab region among themselves. France took control of Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, and Algeria. The United Kingdom governed Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf territories, while Italy occupied Libya.
He described this partition as a clear manifestation of Western colonialism and imperialism.
At the same time, he noted a shift in regional perspectives. In countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, some narratives have begun to frame Ottoman rule itself as a form of earlier colonialism. According to Hajriyanto, this reflects an evolving historical interpretation within Arab societies.
From Balfour to Statehood
The roots of the modern Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he continued, can be traced to the Balfour Declaration. Issued by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in 1917, the declaration endorsed the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
This policy, he said, triggered waves of Jewish migration from Europe. Initially, local Palestinian communities welcomed many of the newcomers. Historical accounts, he noted, describe warm receptions at ports such as Jaffa, now part of modern-day Tel Aviv.
However, as migration increased and land ownership shifted, tensions escalated. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the state of Israel.
Hajriyanto pointed out that the recognition came swiftly. Within minutes, Harry S. Truman, then president of the United States, formally acknowledged the new state. He suggested that such rapid recognition raises questions about prior political coordination.
Strategic and Religious Alliances
Hajriyanto argued that the U.S.-Israel relationship extends beyond conventional geopolitics. He described it as deep, unique, and partly shaped by theological perspectives.
Support for Zionism, he noted, dates back to figures like Woodrow Wilson. Additionally, American religious traditions—particularly Puritan influences—have long viewed Jerusalem as a spiritual center.
He also referenced cultural figures such as Mark Twain, whose writings reflected Western fascination with the Holy Land.
According to Hajriyanto, these elements contribute to a blend of political, religious, and even apocalyptic motivations behind U.S. support for Israel.
The Current Conflict Landscape
Turning to the present, Hajriyanto described the ongoing conflict as involving Israel and three main fronts: Palestinian groups, Arab states, and what he termed the “axis of resistance,” backed by Iran.
He noted that the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, has largely pursued diplomatic channels. Meanwhile, armed resistance continues through groups such as Hamas, along with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi forces in Yemen.
In his analysis, Israel has weakened Hamas and targeted Hezbollah’s infrastructure. As a result, he said, confrontation with Iran has intensified.
He argued that Iran represents the primary strategic target for both the United States and Israel, as it remains a key supporter of resistance movements in the region.
The Prospect of a “New Middle East”
Hajriyanto warned that if Iran were significantly weakened, it could reshape the regional balance of power. In that scenario, he said, the United States and Israel would have greater freedom to advance plans for a “New Middle East.”
He described this concept as an effort to restructure the region according to strategic interests, potentially aligning with ideas such as “Greater Israel.”
“They aim to build a New Middle East,” he said. “The main condition is weakening this axis of resistance.”
Currently, he noted, several Arab countries—including Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco—have established diplomatic ties with Israel. He suggested that this number may grow under diplomatic and political pressure.
In closing, Hajriyanto acknowledged that individuals may choose not to support Iran. However, he cautioned against dismissing Iran’s role in supporting Palestinian resistance.
He also questioned the idea of neutrality, particularly for Indonesians. The conflict, he argued, extends beyond oil or geopolitics. It touches on justice, colonial history, and humanitarian concerns.
“For Indonesians to remain neutral,” he said, “would be deeply perplexing.”
