Indonesia defiant after IOC calls for no events over Israeli gymnast ban Azad News HD
what happened
The immediate catalyst was the upcoming 2025 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, scheduled to take place in Jakarta from October 19–25.
On October 9, Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Corrections, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, announced that the country would not grant visas to six Israeli athletes who were to participate in the championships. The justification: support for the Palestinian cause, in line with Indonesia’s longstanding foreign-policy position.
Subsequently, the IOC formally expressed “great concern” at the decision, stating that “all eligible athletes, teams and sports officials must be able to participate in international sports competitions and events without any form of discrimination from the host country.”
Then, on October 22–23, the IOC’s Executive Board took the rare step of recommending that all international sports federations refrain from hosting any tournaments or meetings in Indonesia until the government gives concrete guarantees of non-discriminatory participation. It also said it would halt any discussions with Indonesia’s National Olympic Committee (NOC) about hosting future Olympic or Youth Olympic events.
In response, Indonesia’s Youth and Sport Minister Erick Thohir stated that while the government “understands the consequences” of its decision, it remains committed to playing an active role in regional and global sports. He emphasised that the decision was grounded in national constitutional obligations to maintain public order and world order.
Indonesia’s position: rationale, strategy and messaging
From Jakarta’s vantage point, several themes inform its decision-making:
-
Foreign policy and solidarity with Palestine
Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-majority country and does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Israel. The government has tied its stance on Israeli athletes’ participation to its support of Palestinian statehood, and to public and religious sentiments within the country. The refusal to issue visas is therefore deeply rooted not simply in sport but in the broader geopolitical alignment of Indonesia. -
Domestic politics, public order and societal expectation
Minister Thohir and others have framed the decision in terms of public-order concerns and alignment with Indonesia’s constitutional norms. Thohir noted that “we adhere to the principle of maintaining security, public order, and the public interest.”In Indonesia, there is strong public sentiment supporting Palestine and scepticism of participation by Israeli delegations. Some local officials (e.g., the Governor of Jakarta) publicly affirmed that Israeli athletes would not be welcome in the capital.
-
Sporting ambition and contradictions
Indonesia has publicly expressed interest in hosting future major sporting events — including a bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics. But the decision to bar the Israeli athletes has placed that ambition under serious threat. The government acknowledges that “as long as [we] decline to accept Israeli athletes, [we] would not be allowed to host any world championships, Olympic and Youth Olympic events or other sporting events under the Olympic umbrella.”At the same time, Jakarta insists it remains committed to “an active role” in sport — regionally and globally — although clearly diverging from the IOC’s unconditional model of participation.
The IOC’s position: principles, sanctions and precedent
The IOC’s response is grounded in its charter and the fundamental values of the Olympic Movement: non-discrimination, autonomy of sport, and political neutrality. Some of the key points:
-
Non-discrimination: The IOC statement made clear that “all eligible athletes, teams and sports officials must be able to participate … without any form of discrimination from the host country.”
-
Host country obligations: The IOC emphasised that the host country, organiser, and relevant sports bodies bear responsibility to ensure access for all eligible athletes.
-
Meaningful sanctions: The Executive Board decided:
-
To end any dialogue with Indonesia’s NOC about hosting Olympic or Youth Olympic events or conferences until Indonesia provides adequate guarantees.
-
To recommend that international sports federations not host events in Indonesia until such guarantees are in place.
-
To revise future Olympic qualification criteria to include guarantees of access for all athletes, regardless of nationality, in host country agreements.
-
-
Precedent and signal value: The IOC’s strong response signals that even one refusal of a specific nationality can prevent a country from future Olympic-related hosting rights. This precedent reinforces the principle that national politics cannot be allowed to override the universality of sport.
The broader implications
This situation carries significant implications — not just for Indonesia and the IOC, but for sport governance, diplomacy, and athletes around the world. Some of the major dimensions:
1. Hosting rights and international credibility
Indonesia's bid to host future events, including possibly the 2036 Summer Olympics, is now teetering. The IOC’s freeze on dialogue means that until Jakarta resolves the matter in the IOC’s eyes, its candidacy remains stalled. This outcome emphasises how host nation behaviour — beyond infrastructure and finance — is increasingly central to hosting rights.
2. National sovereignty vs. sporting universality
Indonesia is asserting sovereign right to deny visas under its immigration and foreign-policy prerogative. At the same time, sport’s governing bodies demand universality — that no athlete be prevented from competing on grounds of nationality or politics. The tension raises the question: when does a nation’s political posture override the commitments to global sport? And what happens if national policy deliberately conflicts with sporting norms?
3. Role of sports bodies in geopolitics
The incident feeds into the broader debate over how much sport can — or should — be insulated from politics. The IOC insists on political neutrality, but the denial of athletes based on nationality is, in effect, political. This raises the spectre: if politics seeps in, does sport lose its unique value as a bridge between nations? Or are these boundaries increasingly blurred in a hyper-connected, hyper-politicised world?
4. Athlete rights and sporting fairness
From the athlete perspective, the denial of entry means Israeli gymnasts are excluded from competing — despite their eligibility. The Olympic ideal holds that athletes should not be penalised for governments’ decisions; yet here they are. That raises concerns about fairness, the rights of athletes, and whether international sport can consistently safeguard those rights when national governments intervene.
5. Regional sport diplomacy and Asia’s role
For Indonesia and broader Southeast Asia, the incident sends ripples. On one hand, Indonesia is signalling it wants to be a global sporting hub. On the other, this conflict may undermine its attractiveness as a host. For regional sport diplomacy, the lesson is that hosting major events is not just about stadiums and budgets — it’s also about aligning with global norms and guaranteeing inclusivity.
What Indonesia means by “an active role”
Despite the criticism and the IOC’s actions, Indonesia has doubled down on its ambition to remain actively engaged in the global sports ecosystem. Some elements of what this means:
-
Participating and organising at regional level (e.g., Southeast Asian and Asian Games).
-
Continuing to host international-style events within frameworks acceptable to its national policy.
-
Building sport infrastructure and athlete development domestically, raising Indonesia’s profile in sport beyond simply hosting mega-events.
-
Leveraging sport as a platform for national identity, diplomacy and soft power — especially as Indonesia projects itself as a major global actor in the 21st century.
By positioning itself this way, Indonesia appears to want to walk a parallel path: affirming its foreign-policy convictions (i.e., support for Palestine, stance on Israel) while not relinquishing ambition in sport. The key phrase from Minister Thohir: “Indonesia will continue to play an active role in various sporting events at the Southeast Asian, Asian, and world levels, so that Indonesian sports can be an ambassador and a reflection of the nation’s greatness in the eyes of the world.”
Possible scenarios ahead
Given how the situation has unfolded, several possible futures (or combinations thereof) may play out:
-
Indonesia relents, issues guarantee for all athletes
If Indonesia provides clear, binding guarantees that all eligible athletes — irrespective of nationality — will be admitted to future events, the IOC may gradually resume dialogue and reintegrate Indonesia into the hosting pipeline. This would likely require a formal assurance, possibly legislative or constitutional, and could involve negotiations about how to reconcile Indonesia’s foreign-policy stance with its sport-hosting ambitions. -
Indonesia maintains its current policy, chooses to host only selective events
Indonesia may decide that its foreign-policy principle (non-recognition of Israel, support for Palestine) is non-negotiable and accept that certain international events (Olympic-level) may remain off-the table. It could instead focus on regional sport, or non-IOC-sanctioned global events where entry criteria are less stringent or more flexible. In this scenario, the country’s ambition to be a full global sport hub may be curtailed or refocused. -
Prolonged standoff, reputational damage, reduced hosting rights
If no accommodation is reached, Indonesia might face a long-term freeze from major sport hosting rights (especially IOC-linked). That could reduce investment in event infrastructure, impact bidding prospects for future events, and diminish Indonesia’s standing in global sport administration. -
Broader ripple effects: other countries, federations re-examine agreements
The case may prompt sports federations globally to tighten host-country requirements — for example, requiring written guarantees of non-discrimination, visa access assurances, and codified consequences for non-compliance. The IOC already has moved toward revising qualification criteria and host obligations.
Key questions and tensions
This situation is not simply about one country and one event — it raises deeper questions:
-
To what extent can national foreign policy (e.g., refusing to recognise a country) be accommodated within global sporting obligations?
In this case, Indonesia is refusing entry to Israeli athletes based on its non-recognition of Israel and solidarity with Palestine. Thus, the “denial of access” is explicitly linked not to the athletes’ credentials, but to nationality/politics. The IOC finds this incompatible with the Olympic Charter. -
Should sport be insulated from geopolitics — or is that an unrealistic ideal?
The Olympic model envisions sport transcending politics, but this case reminds us that sport often intersects with diplomacy, national identity, and ideological conflict. The challenge is whether sport governance can maintain universality in the face of overt state-level political decisions. -
What are the rights of athletes in these circumstances?
When a host country denies visas, the athletes (here Israeli) lose out. The fairness of penalising athletes for actions beyond their control is a fundamental ethical concern. The IOC states athletes must not be held responsible for political decisions. -
What obligations do international federations and the IOC have in vetting host countries?
Should the FIG (International Gymnastics Federation) have foreseen the risk of awarding the championships to a country that has historically refused Israeli entry? Might host-allocation processes tighten to avoid such situations? The incident may trigger reforms. -
What are the political implications for Indonesia?
By choosing to act in this way, Indonesia is accepting hosting consequences. Is that a rational trade-off? Is Indonesia’s domestic political/religious constituency more important than international sport aspirations? The long-term effects on sport investment and international standing may weigh heavily.
Broader context: history, precedent and regional sport dynamics
Indonesia’s stance is not wholly new. The country has previously been involved in similar controversies: for example, in 1962, Israel and Taiwan were excluded from the Asian Games in Jakarta.
In March 2023, Indonesia was stripped of hosting rights for the Under-20 FIFA World Cup after local objections to Israel’s participation.
In other parts of the world, refusals of visas or entry on political grounds have triggered sports sanctions — though each case has its own nuances. The IOC’s willingness in this case to impose broad recommendations (not merely statements) indicates a stronger threshold being applied.
For Southeast Asia and Asia broadly, Indonesia’s decision could cause other countries to rethink the conditions under which they host major sport events. Hosting sport mega-events is not purely a domestic affair; it links to global norms, diplomacy and international obligations.
What this means for stakeholders
For athletes: They face the uncertainty that even if they qualify and travel, host-country decisions can override participation. The fairness and reliability of sporting pathways are at stake.
For sport federations: Awarding events to hosts becomes riskier. The federations must balance between host desire, geographic diversity, political stability and guarantee of participation. Contractual host-agreements may need stronger language on visa access and non-discrimination.
For Indonesia: The country must decide whether its sporting ambitions require altering its stance on athlete access — or whether it accepts limitations in order to maintain its foreign policy posture. Either path will have costs: lost prestige and opportunity, or political/internal backlash.
For the IOC and global sport governance: This case reinforces the idea that the IOC is willing to act — not just verbally — when national behaviour conflicts with Olympic values. It also signals potential tightening of host-nation requirements for future events.
For diplomacy and soft power: Sport remains a tool of national projection. Indonesia’s insistence on playing an “active role” shows its desire to keep sport as part of its global footprint even amid friction. How it navigates this tension will affect its broader soft-power strategy.
Concluding thoughts
The situation between Indonesia and the IOC is emblematic of a cross-road in global sport: the idea that sporting events are purely apolitical is increasingly untenable. National governments, athlete communities, federations and international institutions all face realities where sport intersects with geopolitics, ethics and national identity.
Indonesia has taken a firm stance anchored in its foreign-policy convictions and internal political calculus. Yet, in doing so, it has collided with the values enshrined by the IOC: universality, non-discrimination and athlete access. The consequences are being felt already — with event hosting rights, a prospective Olympic bid and Indonesia’s global sport ambition now in jeopardy.
Whether Indonesia can reconcile its policy stance with the demands of global sport remains to be seen. Will it provide the guarantees the IOC demands and re-enter the fold of full-scale hosting rights? Or will it chart an alternative course — one grounded more in regional sport or selective event hosting — and accept limitations in the Olympic sphere?
In either case, the message is loud and clear: if sport is to remain truly global and inclusive, host nations must guarantee not just facilities and budgets, but access and neutrality. And nations aspiring to host the world must balance their political convictions with the obligations that come with bei
