The Shadow of Greater Israel’s Hegemony: Global, Regional, and Indonesian Constellations - Center for Geopolitic and Geostrategic Studies

News of Israel’s expanding expansionism—beginning with Qatar as its initial victim and Turkey projected as the next target—cannot be understood as a mere passing ripple in geopolitics.
It is, rather, the echo of a long-running drama that has woven the Middle East into a vortex of competition for space, legitimacy, and domination.

The narrative of “Greater Israel” is not merely an ideological illusion but a religio-geopolitical project aimed at redrawing maps, erasing modern borders, and imposing a menacing hegemony.
From this perspective, the region has once again been forced onto the stage of historical contradictions and the perpetual dance of power.

In the regional geopolitical landscape, Qatar and Turkey are but links in a long chain of resistance.
The recent attack on Doha can be interpreted as Israel’s attempt to send a message to any nation bold enough to challenge its hegemony: no one is beyond the reach of Tel Aviv.
Turkey, with its Ottoman legacy and position as a NATO military power, now stands precariously at the edge of a dangerous abyss.
The region trembles, as Arab and Islamic solidarity itself fractures—some leaning toward normalization with Israel, while others persist in resistance.
Thus, the Middle East mirrors a paradox: one nation seeks recognition through domination, while others struggle to preserve shrinking spaces of freedom.

Yet, this shadow does not stop at regional borders. Global geopolitics forms the wider backdrop in which every Israeli move resonates through the roles of the United States, NATO, Russia, and China.
Washington sustains Tel Aviv with legitimacy and power, turning it into a key pawn in safeguarding America’s strategic architecture in the region.
Russia, though preoccupied in Ukraine, still maintains its foothold in Syria. China, through its quiet diplomacy of economics and energy, seeks space to challenge Western dominance.
Hence, Israel’s expansion cannot be separated from global rivalry—the Middle East stands as a mirror of a new cold war, where old hegemons and rising powers measure their spheres of influence.

In the shadow of this contest, Indonesia cannot remain a distant spectator. Its free-and-active foreign policy, inherited from the Republic’s earliest years, demands both moral stance and pragmatic strategy.
Indonesia carries a constitutional mandate to support Palestine, while also holding concrete geopolitical interests—maintaining the stability of energy routes from the Gulf, strengthening maritime diplomacy, and asserting its role as a balancer in global forums.
Indonesia’s geopolitics thus begins with the awareness that conflicts in the Middle East inevitably ripple into Southeast Asia, affecting energy prices, migration flows, and multilateral diplomatic dynamics.

Israel’s Security Doctrine and the Logic of Expansion

Israel, with its narrow territorial depth, rejects the idea of waiting for attacks and instead chooses to strike first. Yet this logic of pre-emptive defense has evolved into a narrative of expansionism cloaked in the religious-political ideology of “Greater Israel.”
In this transformation, the old doctrine is no longer confined to safeguarding the nation’s survival but has become a justification for hegemonic moves that transcend international law.
It is a strategy blurring the line between self-defense and domination.

Still, Israel does not act alone. Its shadow is magnified by its chief patron—the United States.
Washington, with its immense military and political power, ensures that Israel dares to go as far as it wishes.
Financial aid, weaponry, and diplomatic backing at the United Nations create a shield that ensures Tel Aviv never truly stands alone.
From a global geopolitical standpoint, this is the face of Pax Americana—an order that articulates U.S. strategic interests through Israel’s expansionist confidence.

Meanwhile, Russia plays a double game. Supporting the Syrian regime and maintaining influence in the region, it nonetheless refrains from severing ties with Israel.
Communication channels remain open; Israel’s airstrikes in Syria often proceed without Russian interference—Moscow calculating its broader interests.
This ambiguity reflects Russia’s classical approach: to preserve strategic footholds in the Middle East while avoiding direct confrontation that might jeopardize its global position.
Thus, Russia remains a shadowy yet relevant actor in every pulse of regional dynamics.

China enters the arena differently. Rather than flaunting military might, it sows seeds of economic and energy diplomacy.
Through the Belt and Road Initiative, infrastructure investments, and energy partnerships with Gulf states, Beijing embeds its influence quietly.
Its presence offers a subtle counterbalance to Western dominance—an alternative, non-military form of global connectivity.
Though not openly opposing Israel, China’s approach indirectly weakens America’s geopolitical monopoly in the region, opening space for a more multipolar order.

Hence, Israel’s threat toward Turkey is, in fact, a node within this broader global rivalry.
It is not merely a potential conflict between two states, but a reflection of the tug-of-war among American, Russian, and Chinese interests that make the Middle East a mirror of world geopolitics.

Regional Hegemony and the Global Shadow

The expansionist threat of Israel is not a passing disturbance—it is a fire that may spread across the global horizon.
It reveals how regional geopolitics, global power structures, and Indonesia’s interests intertwine within one inseparable web.
Once again, the Middle East stands as the world’s barometer: will it submit to hegemonic shadows, or will it give birth to a new balance rooted in resistance and solidarity?

This question ultimately concerns not only Turkey or Qatar but also the moral responsibility of nations—including Indonesia—that have pledged to help uphold world peace.
Yet today’s Middle East has become a mosaic of interlinked conflicts, where one spark can ignite flames elsewhere.
Israel seeks to secure itself through domination, blending narratives of survival with ambitions of hegemony.
Turkey, meanwhile, aims to preserve its maneuvering space as an alternative power, striving to offer a regional axis not entirely bound by Western logic.
However, Arab solidarity has fractured: some states normalize relations with Tel Aviv for pragmatic stability, while others persist in defiance.
This fragmentation renders the region fragile—like shattered glass, each shard reflecting the light of conflict.

At this point, regional geopolitics cannot be detached from the global shadow.
The United States reinforces its hegemony through Israel, making it both instrument and ally in preserving Western interests in the Middle East.
Russia, entrenched in Syria, seeks to sustain influence despite constraints from the war in Ukraine.
China, through its quiet diplomacy, looks to chip away at U.S. dominance, offering alternative connectivity via trade and infrastructure.
Europe, caught between energy dependency and moral posturing, remains divided.

The presence of these global actors makes the Middle East far more than a regional conflict zone—it is a barometer of global contestation.
Every move in the region reflects a global push and pull: Israel’s strike on Iranian bases sends messages not only to Tehran but also to Moscow and Washington; Turkey’s rapprochement with Iran or Qatar signals not just regional alliances but messages to NATO and Beijing.
Thus, the Middle East becomes a stage where local strategies and global ambitions entwine—forming a web of complexity nearly impossible to unravel.
In this vortex, regional hegemony constantly overlaps with global shadows.
Israel may claim dominance, but without U.S. patronage, that dominance is fragile.
Turkey may posture as a counterbalance, but its every move is judged within NATO and non-Western contexts.
Even Arab states pursuing normalization weigh their decisions within the calculus of global geopolitics. No actor is truly free; all are bound by a larger gravitational pull.

Hence, the Middle East today mirrors the world itself—a reflection of unstable multipolarity, where regional conflicts can no longer be viewed in isolation but as echoes of global dynamics.
Regional hegemony and the global shadow are two sides of the same coin, underscoring that the future of the Middle East will remain bound to struggles over civilization, energy, and legitimacy on a planetary scale.

Indonesia and the Free-and-Active Foreign Policy

Indonesia, guided by its free-and-active foreign policy, stands apart from the expansionist impulses that often color Middle Eastern dynamics.
The nation holds no ambition to conquer or expand, yet it rests on two unwavering foundations.
First, the constitutional foundation: the 1945 Constitution explicitly mandates support for decolonization, including the Palestinian struggle.
Second, the geopolitical foundation: maintaining global balance through non-alignment, resisting the pull of great-power orbits while actively pursuing peace.

From these foundations, Indonesia has built a diplomatic identity—moral yet strategic.
In the global framework, Indonesia possesses maneuvering room beyond normative sympathy.
Its membership in the G20, its leadership in ASEAN, and its legacy in the Non-Aligned Movement give Jakarta platforms to voice the interests of the Global South.
Indonesia can champion the creation of a more balanced world order, where Middle Eastern conflicts are not viewed solely through a Western lens but through inclusive global interests.
In such forums, Indonesia brings a voice that rejects domination, upholds justice, and reinforces the importance of international solidarity.

Indonesia’s maritime dimension also adds to its relevance. As a global maritime fulcrum, the energy routes from the Middle East to East Asia pass through its waters.
Tensions in the Gulf or escalations between Israel and Turkey will directly affect the energy supply chains that sustain Indonesia’s industries and livelihoods.
Thus, the Middle East is not a distant issue—it directly touches Indonesia’s vital interests in energy security and economic stability.
In this sense, Indonesia’s maritime diplomacy serves both as a tool of national protection and as a contribution to global peace.

Indonesia’s engagement in Middle Eastern issues also carries moral legitimacy. Since the Sukarno era, Indonesia has positioned itself as a nation concerned not only with narrow national interests but with humanity’s broader struggle.
Consistent support for Palestine and the call for global peace remain hallmarks of Indonesia’s diplomatic heritage.
In today’s multipolar world, Indonesia can further its role as a bridge—between North and South, West and East, the Islamic world and the broader international community.

Hence, the Israel–Turkey conflict, though geographically distant, touches Indonesia’s interests across three dimensions: constitutional, geopolitical, and moral.
Free-and-active foreign policy is not a mere slogan—it is a living practice that positions Indonesia as a balancing actor.
From multilateral forums to strategic maritime routes, from Palestinian solidarity to energy stability, Indonesia demonstrates that while geographically distant, it remains geopolitically and ethically close to the heartbeat of the Middle East.

From Qatar to Turkey, from Gaza to Damascus, the Middle East once again burns as a crucible of unending history. Israel’s expansionist threat is but one spark from a fire that has smoldered for over seven decades.
Now, the “Greater Israel” narrative hangs over the region like a storm cloud, confronting Turkey with a dilemma: will it become the next victim of Tel Aviv’s hegemonic design, or rise as the bold challenger to its dominance?
This question is not merely about Ankara—it concerns the entire regional security architecture shaken by Israel’s every move.

The flames engulfing the Middle East can no longer be dismissed as local. They are nodes in a global rivalry reflected in every fracture of the region.
The United States props up Israel as its hegemonic instrument; Russia sustains influence through Damascus; China eyes opportunities through economic diplomacy; and Europe finds itself trapped between its energy dependence and moral claims.
Every regional conflict, therefore, is an echo of a global struggle—where great-power interests intertwine with local wounds.
Gaza, Syria, Qatar, and Turkey are but the screens upon which the drama of global multipolarity unfolds.

For Turkey, this is a perilous crossroads. Bound to NATO’s orbit yet driven by Ottoman memory and Islamic solidarity, it seeks to protect Palestine while managing regional fractures.
The fragmentation of the Arab world makes this path harder—some embrace Tel Aviv for pragmatic stability, while others persist in resistance.
Turkey thus walks a fragile tightrope, confronting Israel while navigating the region’s divisions. Its greatest test lies in whether it can sustain balance amid the vortex of hegemony.

Indonesia, though geographically distant, is in truth close to this pulse. The free-and-active foreign policy inherited from the nation’s founders is not passive—it carries the mandate to actively build global balance.
The 1945 Constitution mandates support for decolonization, which today translates into solidarity with Palestine.
Yet Indonesia’s interests go further: Middle Eastern stability is key to its energy security, moral legitimacy, and role as a global balancer.
Thus, the Israel–Turkey conflict must not be viewed as a foreign drama but as part of Indonesia’s own strategic concern.

The struggle in the Middle East is ultimately about who defines the region’s future—will it submit to the shadow of Israel’s hegemony, reinforced by global patrons, or will it rise toward a new balance born of resistance, solidarity, and cross-regional diplomacy?
This fire may never extinguish, but it also burns as a reminder that the world always has a choice: to yield to domination, or to ignite hope for a more just order.
For Indonesia, that choice is clear—to stand for peace, for justice, and for the eternal mandate to help bring order to the world.

Prof. Dr. Ermaya Suradinata, SH, MH, MS Chairman of the Board of Trustees Center for Geopolitics & Geostrategy Studies Indonesia (CGSI)