Originally published in Daily Asian Age June 14, 2021.
https://dailyasianage.com/news/264184/is-passport-change-a-step-toward-bangladesh-recognizing-israel
A little time has passed since Bangladesh's new passports came out, omitting "except Israel" from "THIS PASSPORT IS VALID FOR ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD EXCEPT ISRAEL." The government had to know it would cause a great deal of speculation:
* Especially since Israel was one of the first countries to recognize Bangladeshi independence, a move that Bangladesh never reciprocated.
* Especially since Bangladesh is one of a shrinking number UN members that do not recognize Israel, and an even smaller number without some level of relations with it.
* Especially since all but the most autocratic and repressive of that group are moving toward recognizing Israel.
* Especially since the nations that have shed blood for the cause Bangladesh claims is the stumbling block now have full relations with Israel, are close to that, or are war-torn and as a result do not have the ability to make that move.
* Especially since Bangladesh already supports the Israeli economy with its purchase of Israeli goods.
Perhaps even more provocative is the fact that while the change became known around the time of another Mideast shooting war, the decision was made at the height of a period when more and more Muslim-majority nations were establishing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords and otherwise. So, is Bangladesh on a path to finally recognizing Israel? As one Bangladeshi military officer told me, "That's the million dollar question."
The Bangladeshis, of course, deny it. They hold to their consistent position that they will not recognize Israel until there is an independent Palestinian Arab state. But while that seems clear enough, it's not so simple. By holding rigidly to that position, Bangladesh’s government is subverting the interests of its people to those of another. Moreover, the position actually takes us further from peace. It has given Palestinian leaders the leeway to refuse even honest negotiations; that is, those without a pre-determined result and in which both parties cede some positions in order to reach an agreement, in this case peace. The Palestinians have never agreed to budge from their demands of an independent Palestine on the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem as its capital, and a wholesale "right of return" for all Palestinians and their descendants. Nor will they recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland. Their positions are structured to eliminate Israel incrementally, and we should not expect Israel or anyone else to agree to commit suicide in order to assuage erstwhile enemies. That is why it was not surprising when the Saudis and others chastised the Palestinians for rejecting honest negotiations. Bangladesh's position was once rock solid among almost all Muslim-majority countries, but no longer is.
Bangladeshi denials also recall what happened with Sudan in 2020. On February 3 last year, Sudanese General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Uganda and discussed issues that included normalizing ties between their nations. But when the meeting became public, the Sudanese government scrambled to deny that anything happened. It said the General was acting on his own, and the foreign policy head of the ruling Supreme Council resigned in protest. Even when Sudan opened its skies to Israeli aircraft soon thereafter, the angry denials continued and did not stop almost until the day when Israel and Sudan normalized relations. Is that what's happening with Bangladesh?
Probably not. Prime Miniter Sheikh Hasina is a shrewd political animal who has survived and thrived despite assassination attempts, international condemnation of unfair elections and minority persecution, and the growing power of home grown radicals. Even after successive elections secured her super majorities in the Jatiya Sangsad and she gained control of most other power centers, Hasina continued to use a political calculus before making decisions that might alienate Bangladesh's growing radical base. Don't expect her to put herself in those crosshairs. Yet, she has overseen a steady increase in Israel-Bangladesh trade, which has been growing year after year since 2014. That means jobs and income, two things needed to maintain the people's support. And she got that without taking politically perilous actions. Israeli goods also have been strengthening Bangladesh's security sector, with quality and effectiveness unavailable through its other trading partners. So, why should she take the political risk of making all that public and unequivocal?
Israel and Israel-supporting Jews played critical roles in the early days of Bangladeshi independence. Israel was one of the first nations to recognize Bangladesh, and were it not for one Jew who loved Israel, that independence might never have happened. Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis all acknowledge Indian General Jack Farj Rafael Jacob's pivotal role in the 1971 War of Independence. Through brilliant maneuvers, his troops captured Dhaka and forced Pakistan's 1971 surrender. His strategy in that war has become mandatory study in several military academies. Bangladeshis gratefully acknowledge that but probably don't know that Jacob was a Zionist, He visited Israel many times and was close with Israeli leaders, especially Mordechai Gur, the Israeli commander who led the liberation of Jerusalem in 1967. Gur's words at the moment of redemption are sealed in the hearts of most Jews and Israelis: "Har ha-bayit be-yedeinu," or "The Temple Mount is in our hands," after 2000 years of Romans, Byzantines, Turks, British, and Jordanians denying Jews access to our holiest site-something Israel never denied Muslims.
When Bangladeshis see their National Assembly building, they should know that they are gazing at the work of another Israel-loving Jew, Louis Kahn. Commissioned by Pakistan in 1962, work was halted when Bangladesh declared independence in 1971. Kahn was so inspired by Bangladesh's independence that he determined to design building to honor it and serve as a symbol of democracy and pride for the Bengali people; which it has been since its completion in 1982.
Its refusal to recognize Israel puts Bangladesh in a small group of nations that is getting smaller and more radical and hurts Bangladesh's international brand as a moderate nation.
Since winning independence in 1971, Bangladesh's brand has been that of a moderate, democratic nation. Like most countries, Bangladesh has found the reality tougher to maintain than simple declarations in its Constitution. Diplomats and others have a strong desire to hold on to that 1971 image, even if doing so can be challenging. Bangladesh's economic miracle and continued success depends on western capital from its garment exports, foreign aid, and its continued participation in UN peacekeeping. If Bangladesh rejects that brand, western capital likely will go elsewhere; and Bangladeshis should not expect the Chinese to pick up the slack and purchase all those garment exports. This puts Bangladesh in a difficult spot as its government contends with internal forces that might push Bangladesh closer to the radical and undemocratic camp.
Of the other countries that do not recognize Israel, seven are fighting civil wars and do not have functioning governments effectively empowered to take that step; five others are among the most radical and tyrannical in the world. It certainly will not help Bangladesh's brand to be in the same category as Iran and North Korea. That leaves 15 other nations; and they provide the clue for where Bangladesh might be moving.
Many of them loudly proclaim the same stance on the Middle East as does Bangladesh. Yet, all have had clandestine (or open) talks with Israel, have military alliances with it, or have long term trade relations with Israel. Several are thought to be on the road toward full diplomatic relations. Would the people of Bangladesh prefer being part of the first group (chaotic); the second (radical, and terror supporting); or the third, much larger group (western oriented and moderate)? No doubt the third, especially if Bangladesh hopes to keep its citizens employed and happy as we navigate the uncertain future of post-pandemic economics.
It also makes the most sense. Bangladesh, like the others but to a lesser degree, trades and conducts talks with Israel. Like some of the others, it can repeat its rejection of diplomatic relations while still getting the benefits of trade with Israel and, at the same time, building people to people relationships. The latter element, built quietly over years in the UAE and elsewhere, is why Israel's latest peace deals are embraced at the popular level in the countries that signed them.
Times have changed, and the conflict is no longer defined by religion.
For most of its history, going back even before Israel was reborn as a modern nation, the conflict was defined by religion. Israel was seen as dar al-harb, and many Muslims were told destroying it was a religious duty. Multi-national Muslim organizations (e.g., the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and their constituent nations took a solidly anti-Israel stance. That is no longer the case. Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have come to recognize that Israel is not their enemy, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is.
Neither was that religious wall evident during Israel's recent clash with Hamas, though the Gaza terror group tried to make it a matter of religion. It claimed that Al Aqsa was in danger--which makes no sense. Since coming under Israeli control, the Muslim Waqf has dug out large parts of the Temple Mount for auxiliary mosques to accommodate many more worshippers—mosque attendance that never led to that under Muslim Turkish and Muslim Jordanian control. Consider, too, that the Israeli government protects Muslim prayer on the Mount, but forbids Jews from praying there.
Regardless, Hamas's attempt did not work. No Muslim nation joined the attacks, and many criticized Hamas for firing indiscriminately at civilians, while Israel went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Even the head of the Gaza-based and anti-Israel United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA), said as much for which Hamas expelled him.
Building ties with Israel benefits the people of Bangladesh.
Besides the technological advantages trade with Israel offers, Israel also provides aid and training in many countries worldwide. It can be long term and structural, in fields like agriculture and security, or emergency aid following natural disasters. The overall opinion I encountered is that, yes, Israel would like relations with Bangladesh, but that Bangladesh's refusal does not hurt Israel or motivate it to exert even greater efforts to resolve its conflict with Palestinians. It does, however, victimize Bangladeshi citizens, depriving them of work opportunities in Israel where approximately one in every 30 people is a foreign worker. So those lost opportunities are ample. The travel ban also prevented Bangladeshis from traveling there for educational opportunities, including seminars and conferences; and, as many observant Bangladeshi Muslims told me, it prevents them from praying at Al Aqsa mosque and elsewhere in Israel. Removing the passport restriction, then, is a positive move regardless of what it does or does not signify.
There's another factor: the United States. When Morocco recognized Israel, the US recognized that country's claim to the disputed Western Sahara. When Sudan recognized Israel, it was removed from the list of terror sponsoring nations. When Egypt made peace with Israel, it became the second largest recipient of US foreign aid. I have no doubt that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is well aware of that and what Bangladesh could gain.
Do not expect Bangladeshi recognition of Israel soon. Both active and retired members of the government and military made that clear; and I take them at their word. I do expect, however, that Bangladesh will put itself in the larger category of nations—and apart from the most radical regimes—and increase trade with Israel, perhaps even allow Bangladeshis to visit Israel and see things for themselves.
The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical expert. The opinions expressed in the article totally belong to the author and have nothing to do with the editorial policy of The Asian Age.