Three Indonesian soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon in less than 48 hours. They were not fighters. They were part of a United Nations peacekeeping mission (UNIFIL). They were stationed in known positions. And still, they died.

This is not a tragic accident. It is a clear signal.

The sequence of events matters. On 29th March, a projectile struck a UN position near Adchit al-Qusayr, killing one Indonesian peacekeeper and critically injuring another. Hours later, a second incident—an explosion that destroyed a UN vehicle near Bani Hayyan—killed two more.

Three dead. In uniform. Under a UN flag.

The Israeli military says it is “reviewing” what happened and emphasises that these deaths occurred in an “active combat zone.” But that explanation is not convincing. UNIFIL positions are fixed, mapped, and communicated to all parties. Peacekeepers are not hidden actors. They are the most visible neutral presence in any conflict zone.

If they are being hit, it is not because they cannot be seen. It is because they are being disregarded.

That distinction matters. Because it speaks directly to intent.

Since early March, Israel has expanded its military campaign in Lebanon, pushing deeper into the south and openly pursuing a buffer zone up to the Litani River. This is not a limited operation. It is a widening one. It has already killed more than 1,200 people in Lebanon and displaced many more.

Peacekeepers are now operating inside a battlefield that is expanding by design.

Peacekeepers are now operating inside a battlefield that is expanding by design.

And this is the point: states that are preparing for peace do not expand war zones. They do not normalize strikes in areas populated by international forces. They do not repeatedly hit locations that are clearly marked as neutral.

Israel’s conduct in Lebanon is not consistent with a state seeking de-escalation. It is consistent with one prioritizing military objectives over diplomatic constraints.

From Hormuz to households: How geopolitics is repricing Indonesia’s cooking oil

Indonesia’s response—condemnation, calls for investigation, appeals for restraint—is justified but insufficient. Because it avoids the larger conclusion that these events force upon us.

Indonesia continues to promote the two-state solution as the ultimate answer to the Palestinian issue. But that position now rests on assumptions that no longer hold.

A two-state solution requires, at minimum, that parties are moving toward coexistence. That territorial arrangements are negotiable. That violence is being contained, not expanded.

None of that is happening.

Instead, the conflict is widening geographically and intensifying militarily. What began as a confrontation involving Gaza has now spread across Lebanon and into a broader regional war involving Iran and the United States. The logic of escalation has overtaken the logic of negotiation.

And in that environment, the two-state solution is not a plan. It is a slogan.

The deaths of Indonesian soldiers should end the illusion.

READ: How Indonesia’s tilt toward the US left it stranded in the Strait of Hormuz

These were not abstract victims. They were Indonesia’s direct contribution to international peacekeeping. They were deployed to uphold a system that depends on one basic principle: that neutral actors will be protected.

That principle is now collapsing.

UNIFIL itself has warned that attacks on peacekeepers may constitute war crimes. Yet such warnings have not altered behavior. Peacekeepers have been hit before in this conflict. They are being hit again. The pattern is clear.

At some point, repetition stops being accidental. It becomes structural.

Indonesia must respond accordingly.

Continuing to promote a two-state solution under these conditions is not principled diplomacy. It is a refusal to adapt. It ignores the fact that one side is actively reshaping the map through force while the other side lacks the capacity to negotiate from any meaningful position.

A policy built on outdated assumptions will not produce results. It will only produce more statements—more condemnations, more investigations, more funerals.

These were not abstract victims. They were Indonesia’s direct contribution to international peacekeeping. They were deployed to uphold a system that depends on one basic principle: that neutral actors will be protected.

These were not abstract victims. They were Indonesia’s direct contribution to international peacekeeping. They were deployed to uphold a system that depends on one basic principle: that neutral actors will be protected.

The government in Jakarta needs to abandon the illusion that those rights will be secured through a framework that no longer reflects reality.

The immediate priorities are clearer: enforce accountability for attacks on peacekeepers, push for enforceable ceasefires, and recognise that the current trajectory of Israeli military policy is not compatible with peace.

The deaths of three Indonesian soldiers are not a side effect of war. They are evidence of its direction.

And that direction is not toward peace.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor