Sri Lanka’s stance on war in Gaza and questions it raises

The critical question we must now confront is whether the Government’s vague and detached position on Gaza signals the nascent stages of a precarious mindset

The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry recently issued a media release regarding Israel’s war on Gaza—an 

announcement that comes after noticeable hesitation. This statement follows sharp criticism in Parliament over the Government’s prolonged silence on Israel’s renewed military action and the resulting humanitarian crisis.

The most pressing question is why the Foreign Ministry’s statement fails to acknowledge the atrocities committed by Israel or express sympathy for the Palestinian people, who continue to suffer under an illegal and oppressive occupation. There is a perfunctory mention of “situation in Gaza” and an equally insipid call on ‘all sides’ to avoid precipitating actions. Notably, the statement omits any reference to a two-state solution—an absence that conveniently aligns with the position of the Netanyahu administration.

This seemingly skewed, unempathetic message inevitably raises profound concerns about the underlying motivations that compelled the Government to adopt such a posture. What is driving this diplomatic ambiguity?

Economic pressures and strategic calculations

One plausible explanation lies in Sri Lanka’s current economic interests—particularly, ongoing efforts to secure tariff concessions from the United States. With the return of Donald Trump’s protectionist trade policies, there is an increasing risk that Sri Lankan exports could face significant barriers in the US market. While some economists suggest that these policies may boost Sri Lankan exports, the more immediate reality is one of negotiation and compromise. What better compromise could the US then demand in return for tariff concessions under President Trump?

Furthermore, there are expectations within Government circles that US-Israeli business interests could inject significant capital into Colombo Port City ventures, or into other pivotal sectors earmarked for investment, especially as investments from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states remain elusive. Unlike these Gulf nations—many of whom are adopting increasingly cautious foreign investment strategies—US-Israeli businesses may be inclined to engage, particularly if Sri Lanka demonstrably aligns itself with their geopolitical interests. The burgeoning Israeli interest in Sri Lanka’s tourism sector in recent times seems to suggest this trajectory.

The recent visit of the US Indo-Pacific Commander to Sri Lanka is another indicator of the growing strategic entanglements. While the visit is generally framed as part of a broader US Indo-Pacific security strategy, there are indications that it also aimed to secure Sri Lanka’s tacit support for US-Israeli approach to the Middle East. This is not without precedent—Sri Lanka deployed naval assets to assist US maritime operations in the region under a broader strategic understanding during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Presidency. 

A shift in foreign policy principles?

At a deeper level, there appears to be a troubling redefinition of what constitutes “balance” in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. The Foreign Ministry seems increasingly preoccupied with maintaining a specious neutrality between warring parties—regardless of whether one side is the clear aggressor. In the case of Israel and Palestine, this approach risks obscuring the reality of Israel’s decades-long illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, and alleged genocidal practices—facts documented by the United Nations and other credible sources, including the UN’s Israeli Practices Committee which itself Sri Lanka chairs. 

The peril of such moral indifference cannot be overstated. History offers chilling lessons: psychoanalytic studies reveal that Adolf Hitler not only lacked empathy but also deliberately de-empathised German society, paving the way for collective complicity in his genocidal policies. The critical question we must now confront is whether the Government’s vague and detached position on Gaza signals the nascent stages of a precarious mindset—one that prioritises political expediency over unwavering moral clarity, perceivably for short term economic benefits. 

The Foreign Ministry’s media release may represent only the surface of a much larger policy shift—one that could become clearer in the coming months. If Sri Lanka’s diplomatic posture is being shaped by external pressures rather than principles of justice and international law, it risks irrevocably compromising not only its moral standing but also its long-term national interests

Parliamentary dissent and internal contradictions

The Government’s position also appears internally inconsistent. In recent Parliamentary debates, several Muslim Members of Parliament condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. Deputy Speaker Rizvie Salih, Deputy Minister Muneer Mulaffer, and Opposition MPs Rauff Hakeem and Nizam Kariapper all denounced the atrocities committed by the Netanyahu government.

Given that the first two political figures hold official positions within the ruling administration, it is unlikely their speeches were made without the Government’s tacit approval. This inevitably raises a critical question: why does the Foreign Ministry’s media release fail to reflect even a semblance of the profound concerns articulated within the House?

A more cynical interpretation suggests a dual strategy—allowing NPP Muslim MPs to voice their outrage to appease domestic audiences while signalling to Israel and its allies that the administration remains aligned with their broader geopolitical agenda or regional security interests. The omission of any reference to a two-state solution may appear to be a deliberate move in this context.

A dangerous precedent

The Foreign Ministry’s media release may represent only the surface of a much larger policy shift—one that could become clearer in the coming months. If Sri Lanka’s diplomatic posture is being shaped by external pressures rather than principles of justice and international law, it risks irrevocably compromising not only its moral standing but also its long-term national interests.

Only through genuine, principled stance can the Government hope to dispel growing concerns over its perceived tilted position on Gaza. Anything less will serve to further erode public trust and deepen doubts about the ethical foundations of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. Some may argue that ethical foundations are inconsequential, but a fundamentally unprincipled---and expedient ---approach is a sure recipe for foreign policy debacles.