Dhaka’s silence about Gaza signals a moral retreat, deepening the gap between public sentiment and foreign policy.
As mass graves are dug in Rafah and Gaza’s last hospitals are collapsing under bombardment, calls for a ceasefire have grown louder. But in Dhaka, once a firm supporter of Palestine, there is an unsettling silence.
In 1971, Bangladesh fought a war against genocide and foreign occupation. Today, the silence on Gaza raises questions about the erosion of those very ideals. Now, the country is in a neutral stance due to complex diplomatic issues.
This moral retreat is more profound than a simple policy adjustment. This shift from outspoken advocacy to muted engagement marks not only neutrality but also retreat and a strategic move.
Just a concession?
The overwhelmingly large-scale protests that began in late 2023 and continued into early 2024 demonstrated the public’s growing frustration with the government’s muted stance.
In response to mounting pressure, the government reinstated the “Except Israel” clause on passports in early April 2025, a move widely seen as a symbolic concession to public sentiment.
Shortly after the Rafah massacre, a student protester captured this collective frustration: “We took to the streets as world leaders forget the Palestinian people. We want freedom of the Palestinian people and trial of the Israel leaders for war crimes.”
These sentiments culminated days later into the march for Gaza, held on April 12, 2025, where at least 100,000 people rallied in Dhaka. Demonstrators carried symbolic coffins and effigies and pledged to boycott Israel-linked products.
Bangladesh's constitution, Article 25, enshrines principles of international peace, solidarity, and support for oppressed peoples. But a discrepancy between these foundational principles and actual foreign policy could lead to a loss of moral alignment from the nation that struggles to speak up for others in their darkest hour, for the country that has a post-colonial identity rooted in anti-imperialism, self-determination, and justice.
Although Bangladesh expressed its intention to intervene in South Africa's ICJ genocide case in January 2024, it has yet to take concrete measures to formally submit its declaration of intervention, which other states like Turkey, Colombia, Nicaragua, Libya, and even some European countries have already done, making Dhaka’s delay a growing point of contention.
Voting for ceasefire is not enough
As of mid-June 2025, Bangladesh has still not submitted any formal intervention request under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute, reinforcing concerns about its hesitation.
However, on June 12, the UN General Assembly adopted a sweeping resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access in Gaza, for which Bangladesh voted in favour.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation welcomed the resolution the next day, though Bangladesh has yet to issue any independent national statement reinforcing its position
Bangladesh has, however, consistently voted on UN General Assembly resolutions demanding ceasefires, which are crucial for the global record. But mere voting is certainly not enough.
The consequences can be severe. A prolonged silence or overly cautious approach to a humanitarian crisis of Gaza's scale could significantly diminish its standing and moral authority within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and among Muslim-majority nations.
If the government's foreign policy doesn't evolve to reflect this intensity of public sentiment through more impactful actions, it risks creating a disconnect between the state and its citizens.
Bangladesh's foreign policy on the Gaza conflict is deeply influenced by a complex web of geopolitical considerations, often leading to a cautious approach that balances its foundational principles with pragmatic national interests. These considerations shape how it navigates the issue on the global stage.
The current interim government assumed power in August 2024 amidst significant political upheaval. Its primary stated priority is to guide the country towards reforms and elections. Making sweeping foreign policy changes, particularly those that might be perceived as controversial by international partners, could risk destabilizing its efforts to gain internal and external legitimacy.
As the country prepares to graduate from Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2026 , it faces the loss of trade preferences and concessional loans.
To cushion the impact, Bangladesh is pursuing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPA). Additionally, it has secured a $4.1 billion loan package from the IMF, including $1.3bn under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility.
Bangladesh’s foreign policy relations have been tense since the 2024 government shift, strained by disputes over water sharing, trade, and the extradition of the previous prime minister.
India’s deepening ties with Israel, particularly in defense and intelligence, mean a strong Bangladeshi stance on Gaza could further strain bilateral relations. Simultaneously, Bangladesh navigates the Sino-Indian rivalry, balancing long-standing ties with India against growing economic cooperation with China.
Moving beyond collective statements to bold actions in various international forums like the UN, OIC, and the NAM requires a departure from this cautious multilateral approach, which can jeopardize its relationships.
The interim government must balance these with the need to maintain stability and manage its relationships with powerful external actors, because an overly vocal stance could be exploited by domestic political factions or external forces, potentially leading to unrest.
Bangladesh, as a Muslim-majority nation, has been keen to project an image of moderation and secularism. Taking a strong moral stand on a Muslim-centric issue like Palestine, while aligning with its principles, sometimes carries the subtle fear of being typecast or misunderstood by some Western countries as leaning towards Islamist extremism.
However, this issue is not about a specific religion but humanity. It can navigate its geopolitical realities by diversifying economic partnerships and maintaining open and respectful ties with India despite its alliance.
Foreign policies must reflect both public sentiment and strategic foresight. A recalibrated approach, anchored in moral clarity rather than cold realpolitik, is essential for Bangladesh to uphold its values and contribute meaningfully.
From a nation that once dared to act, Bangladesh has become hesitant to speak. But silence, in the face of genocide, will not secure diplomatic gains; it only erodes its soul.
Shaikh Afnan Birahim is a Bangladeshi writer, analyst, and a postgraduate student at the University of Glasgow.
