✍ MD Salah Uddin, PhD Researcher
In April 2025, the interim government of Bangladesh, headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, took a decisive and historically resonant step by reinstating the phrase “This passport is valid for all countries of the world except Israel” on Bangladeshi passports. This act, though administrative in appearance, carries profound symbolic and geopolitical significance. It marks a clear return to Bangladesh’s foundational foreign policy doctrine rooted in ethical resistance to colonialism, apartheid, and systemic injustice — principles that have long underpinned the nation’s unwavering non-recognition of Israel. Since its independence in 1971, Bangladesh has consistently stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people, viewing their struggle as a mirror of its liberation history. The removal of the phrase under Sheikh Hasina’s administration in 2021, under the guise of aligning with international aviation standards, was widely criticized as a covert policy shift influenced by external geopolitical actors, particularly India and its close ally Israel. That change was perceived by many as a betrayal of Bangladesh’s ideological commitments and a weakening of Muslim solidarity in favor of strategic appeasement.
The reinstatement of the clause under Professor Yunus’ leadership must therefore be understood within a broader context — one shaped by both the immediate humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and long-term shifts in South Asian geopolitics. As Israel continues its devastating military campaign against the Palestinian population, widely described as genocidal by global human rights organizations, popular outrage in Muslim-majority nations like Bangladesh has reached unprecedented levels. The decision reflects the interim government’s responsiveness to public sentiment, as well as a deliberate attempt to realign Bangladesh’s foreign policy with its ethical and constitutional principles, including its historic commitment to oppressed peoples’ right to self-determination. Furthermore, this policy move carries strategic weight in signaling a departure from the prior regime’s tacit submission to Indian and Western diplomatic pressures. It restores a moral clarity to Bangladesh’s international posture and revives the country’s identity as a conscientious voice in the Global South, committed to justice, dignity, and the defense of human rights on a global scale.
-
Historical Foundations of Bangladesh’s Position on Israel
Since it emerged as an independent nation in 1971, Bangladesh has maintained a firm and unambiguous stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, positioning itself as a consistent supporter of the Palestinian cause. From the earliest stages of state formation, Bangladesh’s foreign policy has been guided by principles of anti-colonialism, self-determination, and justice for oppressed peoples — values that naturally align with the Palestinian struggle against occupation, displacement, and settler-colonialism. As a reflection of this commitment, the phrase “except Israel” was inscribed on Bangladeshi passports from the very beginning, serving as a symbolic and practical assertion of the country’s refusal to engage diplomatically or formally recognize the State of Israel. This position is not merely rhetorical but embedded within the moral fabric of the nation’s international relations, resonating with the broader consensus within the Muslim world and the Global South.
Bangladesh’s refusal to recognize Israel is grounded in a normative framework that regards the Israeli state’s policies, particularly its expansionist settlement activities, apartheid system, and repeated violations of international humanitarian law, as fundamentally incompatible with global justice and human rights. The country remains among 29 member states of the United Nations that have never formally recognized Israel, joining a bloc of nations that insist any normalization of relations must follow a just and durable solution to the Palestinian question. By aligning itself with this collective resistance, Bangladesh has consistently articulated a diplomacy rooted in ethical responsibility rather than realpolitik. This principled posture underscores its historical support for multilateralism, decolonization, and the rights of stateless peoples, placing Bangladesh firmly within the legacy of postcolonial solidarity movements across the Islamic world and beyond.
-
Diplomatic Shift Under Sheikh Hasina: The 2021 Passport Amendment
In 2021, the government led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina removed the phrase “except Israel” from the passport, claiming that the change was meant to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. However, despite assurances that there was no policy shift, critics viewed the move as a covert diplomatic overture to Israel, under pressure from strategic partners, particularly India and the United States.
This policy manoeuvre occurred amid rising Indo-Israeli cooperation in military, intelligence, and cyber surveillance sectors — sectors in which Bangladesh has had increasing indirect engagements through its partnership with India. Given that India is one of Israel’s top defense clients and shares ideological affinities under the Hindutva-driven BJP regime, it is not implausible that the Hasina administration’s softening position was influenced by regional alignments rather than normative values.
-
The Gaza Genocide and Public Backlash in Bangladesh
The humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza since late 2024 — widely referred to as a genocide by multiple international human rights organizations — has rekindled intense public sentiment in Muslim-majority countries, including Bangladesh. With thousands of Palestinian civilians, including women and children, falling victim to Israeli airstrikes and ground assaults, mass protests erupted in Dhaka and other major cities.
On April 12, 2025, nearly 1000,000 people gathered in the capital to denounce Israeli aggression, demanding not only humanitarian intervention but also a return to Bangladesh’s principled rejection of Israel. Islamic political movements, civil society groups, and student organizations coalesced in calling for a decisive state-level response, including the restoration of the historical passport clause.
-
The Role of Professor Muhammad Yunus and the Interim Government
The appointment of Professor Muhammad Yunus as the head of the interim government in August 2024 marked a paradigm shift in Bangladesh’s political discourse. Tasked with overseeing democratic restoration after the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s long-standing and increasingly authoritarian regime, Yunus’s administration emphasized transparency, justice, and adherence to ethical foreign policy standards.
The decision to reintroduce the “except Israel” clause is emblematic of a broader recalibration, both moral and strategic. It reasserts Bangladesh’s alignment with international human rights frameworks and reaffirms its status within the global Islamic community (Ummah) as a defender of Palestinian self-determination. It also addresses domestic demands for policy authenticity and reverses a perceived betrayal of the country’s ideological heritage.
-
Broader Implications: Strategic, Diplomatic, and Ethical
5.1 Geopolitical Repositioning
The reinstatement of the “except Israel” clause on Bangladeshi passports by the interim government signifies more than a symbolic gesture; it indicates a subtle but significant geopolitical recalibration. In recent years, Bangladesh’s foreign policy under the previous administration had appeared increasingly aligned with the strategic interests of regional hegemon India and key Western partners, particularly in security cooperation and development diplomacy. However, the reassertion of a non-recognition policy toward Israel marks a divergence from that trajectory. In a rapidly evolving multipolar world order, where traditional Western dominance is increasingly contested by emerging Islamic blocs and non-Western powers, Bangladesh’s move opens new pathways for engagement. Countries like Turkey, Iran, Qatar, and even Malaysia — all of which have adopted more vocal positions on Palestine — may now see Bangladesh as a more credible and principled partner on normative and humanitarian grounds. This reorientation enhances Bangladesh’s agency in shaping a more independent foreign policy narrative, driven by values as well as strategic diversification.
5.2 Moral Realignment
This diplomatic maneuver by Professor Muhammad Yunus’ interim government also challenges dominant realist paradigms in international relations, which typically prioritize national interest, economic gain, and geopolitical leverage over moral or ethical considerations. By reinstating the clause amidst the intensifying humanitarian crisis in Gaza — widely condemned by international human rights organizations as genocide or ethnic cleansing — Bangladesh projects a foreign policy vision that foregrounds normative ethics, solidarity with the oppressed, and historical responsibility. Professor Yunus, known globally for his advocacy of ethical capitalism and social justice, has extended his philosophy into the realm of foreign policy. This moral realignment does not suggest naivety; rather, it represents an attempt to balance diplomatic pragmatism with ethical conviction. In doing so, Bangladesh positions itself as a conscientious actor within the global community — a state capable of making value-driven decisions that resonate with both domestic public sentiment and broader global discourses on justice and human rights.
5.3 Reaffirmation of Constitutional Ideals
Equally significant is how this policy shift embodies the constitutional ethos of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The Preamble of the Constitution unequivocally affirms the state’s commitment to “international peace and cooperation,” while Article 25 explicitly mandates the state to “support oppressed peoples throughout the world waging a just struggle against imperialism, colonialism or racialism.” In this context, the reinstatement of the “except Israel” clause is not merely a rhetorical expression of solidarity but a tangible operationalization of these foundational commitments. It transforms constitutional ideals from aspirational declarations into actionable foreign policy. In an era where constitutions are often reduced to symbolic texts with limited influence on diplomatic praxis, Bangladesh’s move provides a rare example of normative constitutionalism guiding external engagement. Furthermore, this decision reaffirms the country’s postcolonial identity, born from a liberation struggle against military and political oppression, and places that legacy in the continuum of global anti-colonial and human rights movements. Particularly in the context of the ongoing Palestinian struggle, the reinstatement marks a principled alignment with the oppressed and reinforces Bangladesh’s moral credibility on the world stage, all while anchoring its foreign policy in both historical experience and the normative principles enshrined in its supreme legal document.
Conclusion
The reinstatement of the “except Israel” clause on Bangladeshi passports by the interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus is far more than a procedural reversal — it is a bold and principled reaffirmation of Bangladesh’s historical and moral compass. This move underscores a conscious return to the foundational ideals upon which the state was established: solidarity with oppressed peoples, resistance to injustice, and an unwavering commitment to human dignity. In doing so, the government has corrected a controversial policy shift made in recent years that many critics viewed as a deviation from the country’s longstanding position on Palestine. The previous removal of the clause was interpreted by scholars and civil society actors as an instance of quiet normalization under external pressure, particularly from India and its Western allies, both of whom maintain close ties with Israel. By reinstating the clause amidst global outrage over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the current administration signals a reinvigorated foreign policy that seeks to reclaim Bangladesh’s moral agency on the world stage.
This decision also reflects a broader geopolitical and ethical reorientation, as Bangladesh aligns itself with a rising coalition of nations committed to a multipolar international order grounded in justice, human rights, and decolonial solidarity. In a global climate increasingly characterized by moral ambiguity, transactional diplomacy, and selective humanism, Bangladesh’s stance emerges as a rare example of diplomatic courage and ethical clarity. It situates the country not only within the collective conscience of the Muslim world but also among postcolonial states asserting their normative voice against the dominant powers’ silence or complicity. Professor Yunus’ leadership, known globally for its emphasis on social innovation and human dignity, has now extended these values into the realm of international relations, offering an alternative model of statecraft — one that places justice and principle above short-term gains. In essence, the reinstatement of the clause is not just a matter of foreign policy, but a redefinition of Bangladesh’s identity and its place in the moral geography of the 21st century.
