The ongoing conflict in Gaza has profoundly reshaped Israel’s diplomatic landscape with Southeast Asia, revealing both the limitations and opportunities within this geographically distant but strategically important relationship. What emerges is a complex mosaic of responses that reflect the region’s diverse religious, political, and economic interests, with the Gaza war serving as both a catalyst for criticism and a test of established diplomatic ties.
The Regional Divide: A Tale of Two Southeast Asias
Southeast Asia’s response to the Gaza conflict has highlighted a fundamental schism within ASEAN that mirrors broader global divisions. The region can be roughly divided into two camps: those with established diplomatic relations with Israel and those without.
The Pro-Israel Bloc includes Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines—countries that have maintained formal diplomatic ties with Israel and have generally supported its right to self-defense. Singapore stands out as Israel’s strongest ally in the region, with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s government issuing statements that “harshly condemn Hamas’ brutal tactics” while calling for cessation of violence. This position reflects Singapore’s pragmatic foreign policy approach and its longstanding security cooperation with Israel, dating back to the city-state’s independence in 1965.
The Non-Recognition Bloc comprises Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei—Muslim-majority nations that have never established formal diplomatic relations with Israel. These countries have used the Gaza crisis to reinforce their support for Palestinian statehood and have been vocal critics of Israeli military actions. Malaysia, under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, has taken perhaps the most confrontational stance, with Ibrahim directly communicating with Hamas leadership and calling for immediate ceasefires.
The Surprising Significance of a Distant Conflict
Perhaps the most striking finding from recent regional surveys is how the Gaza conflict has displaced traditionally dominant regional concerns. According to the State of Southeast Asia 2024 survey, the Israel-Hamas war has become the foremost geopolitical concern in Southeast Asia, remarkably surpassing even the South China Sea dispute—a development that would have been unthinkable just years ago.
This shift reveals several important dynamics. First, it demonstrates the power of religious and cultural solidarity in shaping foreign policy priorities, particularly among the region’s substantial Muslim populations. Second, it highlights growing concerns about extremism and radicalization, as regional leaders worry that the Gaza conflict could inspire domestic terrorist activities. Third, it reflects a broader questioning of Western leadership and moral authority, particularly regarding the United States’ role in the conflict.
Economic Interests vs. Moral Positioning
The Gaza war has created tension between economic pragmatism and moral positioning across Southeast Asia. Despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations, countries like Indonesia have maintained “quiet trade, tourism and security contacts” with Israel. Indonesian tourists continue to visit Israel, and Israeli businesses have historically operated in Indonesia, creating an awkward disconnect between official policy and practical reality.
This economic-diplomatic disconnect is particularly pronounced in Malaysia, which has called for boycotts of Israeli products while still allowing indirect trade relationships. The tension reflects a broader challenge for Southeast Asian nations: balancing moral solidarity with Palestinian causes against the practical benefits of engaging with Israel’s advanced technology and security sectors.
The American Factor and Declining Influence
The Gaza conflict has significantly impacted American influence in Southeast Asia, with many in the region viewing U.S. support for Israel as evidence of Western double standards. The annual State of Southeast Asia survey showed declining American popularity in the region, with the Israel-Hamas war identified as a contributing factor. This presents Israel with both a challenge and an opportunity: while association with American foreign policy may hurt Israel’s regional standing, it also creates space for Israel to develop independent relationships based on mutual interests rather than broader geopolitical alignments.
Implications for Israel’s Regional Strategy
The Gaza conflict has forced Israel to confront several strategic realities regarding Southeast Asia:
Diversification Imperative: Israel can no longer rely primarily on its relationships with Singapore and the Philippines to maintain regional influence. The strong reactions from Muslim-majority nations suggest that Israel needs more nuanced approaches to engaging with countries like Indonesia and Malaysia.
The Limits of Security Cooperation: While Israel’s security expertise remains valuable to Southeast Asian nations concerned about terrorism and regional stability, the Gaza conflict has demonstrated that security partnerships cannot insulate diplomatic relationships from broader political considerations.
The Technology Dividend: Israel’s technological prowess, particularly in areas like cybersecurity, water management, and agricultural innovation, remains its strongest diplomatic asset in the region. Countries may criticize Israeli military actions while still seeking technological partnerships.
Religious Sensitivities: The conflict has underscored how religious considerations can override economic and strategic calculations in foreign policy. Israel must develop more sophisticated approaches to engaging with Muslim-majority nations that acknowledge these sensitivities.
Future Trajectories and Recommendations
Looking ahead, several trends are likely to shape Israel-Southeast Asia relations:
Conditional Engagement: Even countries without formal diplomatic relations with Israel may be willing to engage on specific issues—climate change, technology transfer, counter-terrorism—while maintaining their broader political positions. Israel should explore these sectoral partnerships as building blocks for eventual broader engagement.
The Generational Shift: Younger Southeast Asian leaders may be less bound by historical positions on Israel-Palestine, creating opportunities for fresh diplomatic approaches. However, the Gaza conflict may have reinforced negative perceptions among younger, more globally connected populations.
The China Alternative: China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia provides an alternative partnership model that doesn’t carry the baggage of Middle Eastern conflicts. Israel must demonstrate unique value propositions that China cannot provide.
Multilateral Frameworks: Working through multilateral institutions and focusing on shared challenges like climate change, pandemic preparedness, and economic development may provide pathways for engagement that avoid the bilateral political complications of the Israel-Palestine issue.
The Gaza conflict has served as both a stress test and a clarifying moment for Israel’s relationships in Southeast Asia. While it has hardened positions among Israel’s critics and created new diplomatic challenges, it has also revealed the durability of relationships based on mutual strategic interests rather than ideological alignment.
For Israel, the path forward requires acknowledging that its relationship with Southeast Asia cannot be separated from the broader Middle Eastern context while simultaneously working to build partnerships based on shared interests and mutual benefit. The region’s diversity—religious, political, and economic—demands a similarly diverse diplomatic approach that recognizes that one size does not fit all.
The tragedy of Gaza has reminded all parties that distant conflicts can have profound local implications, and that in an interconnected world, no relationship exists in isolation from broader global currents. For Israel and Southeast Asia, the challenge now is to build bridges across this divide while remaining true to their respective principles and interests.