With a theme that echoes the UN’s three foundational pillars of peace, development and human rights, no issue encapsulates this triad more fully than the ongoing situation in Palestine. The devastating war in Gaza, marked by Israel’s military campaign, bold neglect of international laws and the mounting civilian toll, has reinvigorated calls for justice.

In the Global North, public opinion has also shifted, with protests filling the street, pressuring their governments to act.

In the lead-up to the UNGA, several leaders have signaled their intention to support broader international recognition of Palestine as a state. For 76 percent of the UN member states, including Indonesia, such recognition is not groundbreaking.

Palestine is already recognized by the majority of countries. Diplomatic relations have been established, and Palestine enjoys privileges and immunities as a state. Recognition, therefore, is not a favor but the bare minimum.

Yet recognition still carries weight. It creates a legal and political ground to demand that Palestine be treated as a sovereign state, acknowledging the reality of occupation, establishing the obligation of Israel as an occupying power, recognizing Israel’s failure to protect the occupied territory and pushing harder for a just resolution.

However, legal recognition of a state does not in itself ensure the safety of its people. As the crisis in Gaza illustrates, sovereignty on paper offers little protection when civilians are bombarded, women and children bear the brunt of the suffering, aid is obstructed and food is weaponized. In such situations, sovereignty must be accompanied by the international community’s responsibility to act, which is precisely the role envisioned under the three pillars of the R2P.

The R2P principle was born from tragedies in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s, when the international community failed to act against mass atrocities. Adopted in 2005, the principle rests on three pillars: States are responsible for protecting their civilians, the international community should assist them and collective action should be taken if they fail.

In essence, this concept resonated with the vision of the former UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld, that the UN was not created to take us to heaven but to save us from hell.

In practice, however, R2P implementation in several countries, including Libya, invited criticism that it might descend into chaos, regime change and even undermine sovereignty. Critics argue that R2P is applied selectively, often against weaker states, while glaring cases like Palestine are ignored, even since 1948 when the term had not been coined.

If the R2P were applied consistently, Palestine would be its test case. The scale of civilian casualties, denial of humanitarian access, deliberate starvation as a weapon of war and systematic destruction all meet the threshold of the atrocities the international community tried to prevent and intervene: textbook genocide.

Elsewhere, sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans and the severing of diplomatic and trade ties, even “humanitarian intervention”, would have been imposed under the R2P banner to put pressure on and punish the “human right violator”. In Gaza, however, silence reigns. This inaction exposes how R2P as a principle is often bent to geopolitical interests.

Countries’ concern about the R2P is precisely because of such double standards and unclear implementation guidelines. While Indonesia supports the principle, its misuse risks turning it into a cover for intervention rather than a tool for protecting civilians. The Palestinian case proves this point: Even as over 60,000 lives are lost, the principle is pushed aside, not for lack of relevance but for political convenience.

Amid these contradictions, Indonesia has maintained its consistency to support Palestine’s cause. Despite not being a member, Indonesia voiced its concern at the UN Security Council. In the Human Rights Council, Indonesia’s support has been consistent since the inception of the Palestine agenda as a permanent agenda in 2006.

Indonesia’s efforts extend far beyond those forums to ensure that Palestine is not siloed as a merely sensitive issue, but is treated as a multidimensional one. In Geneva, which houses more than 40 international organizations, Indonesia ensures that Palestinian issues gain the attention they deserve, from trade and development to labor and telecommunications.

This comprehensive approach reflects Indonesia’s belief that Palestine’s struggle is not only about borders but about rights and dignity, about global development and about a living promise that “never again” and “no one left behind” are not mere slogans.

Indonesia’s pressure for more action has been reflected in resolutions, the mobilization of support in negotiation blocs such as the Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and China and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the push for humanitarian corridors in Gaza. The cumulative pressure ensures that Palestine remains an international agenda.

As leaders will convene in New York, the Palestinian case will be cast as a test for the R2P. Recognition must therefore be paired with accountability, in which the international community also has a responsibility to take the necessary collective action to protect Palestinians.

For Palestinians, it is a ray of hope to end the suffering of civilians. For the international community, it is a test of trust and credibility of the promise of the R2P.

Indonesia’s position is clear. Faithful implementation of the R2P requires efforts to end the atrocities, ensure humanitarian access and reaffirm that sovereignty is not a gift but a right. Failure to implement this will be a precedent that jeopardizes the R2P principle.

For its part, Indonesia will continue to ensure that its commitment is not forgotten, in New York, in Geneva and across every forum where Palestine's voice must be heard.

Because silence, after all, is complicity.

***

The writer is chargé d’affaires of Indonesia’s permanent mission to the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and other international organizations in Geneva. The views expressed are personal.