No! Sri Lanka isn’t becoming a Haven for foreign war Criminals
Sri Lanka’s mainstream media has increasingly fallen into the trap of reproducing foreign narratives without proper verification, often relying on translations of international stories that lack local context or nuance. While this might seem like harmless journalism on the surface, it becomes deeply problematic when media outlets also begin publishing politically loaded content driven by ideological agendas. In the case of Israel, this trend has taken a more troubling turn — where smear campaigns and unverified claims are dressed up as critical commentary. When opinion pieces blur the line between fact and fiction, they not only mislead the public but also contribute to a culture of resentment, scapegoating, and misinformation. This isn’t journalism — it’s propaganda masquerading as critical thought, aimed at shaping how we think.
Another clear example of this appeared in The Sunday Times on July 20th, 2025, in an article titled “Is Sri Lanka becoming a haven for foreign war criminals?” authored by Kishali Pinto-Jayawardene. It’s an article that combines sensationalism with selective outrage, using Sri Lanka’s internal challenges — like misuse of the Prevention of Terrorism Act — as a springboard for unfounded accusations against Israel and its citizens. This isn’t about facts; it’s about optics and posturing for political correctness. The piece appears to align more with global propaganda trends than it does with objectivße, locally rooted analysis. In this post, I will respond point-by-point to the claims made in the article, exposing the factual errors, logical fallacies, and the dangerous implications of pushing emotionally charged narratives without accountability. [Photo by Valentin Salja on Unsplash]
Misunderstanding the Legal Status of Chabad Houses
The article’s assertion that Chabad Houses are operating “illegally” in Sri Lanka due to the absence of registration under the Companies Act reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. Religious institutions are not businesses and are therefore not obligated to register as companies to function legally. Across Sri Lanka, numerous Christian churches, Buddhist temples, Islamic madrasas, and Hindu kovils operate within legally accepted frameworks such as religious trusts, charitable foundations, or community-based non-profit societies. These entities do not function as commercial ventures, nor are they required to. Singling out Chabad Houses for alleged non-registration under corporate legislation while ignoring this broader context demonstrates a clear double standard. It’s not a legal argument—it’s a selectively applied critique that raises concerns of inconsistency, and potentially, religious or ethnic discrimination masquerading as civic scrutiny.
To suggest that any group engaging in religious worship or serving communal meals must first obtain company registration is both legally absurd and socially dangerous. If taken seriously, this logic would mean criminalizing informal prayer meetings in homes, neighborhood Bible studies, Friday Jummah gatherings in temporary halls, or even food distribution programs run by local temples during Vesak or Poson. Administrative questions related to zoning, permits, or tax compliance should be addressed through dialogue and regulation—not through inflammatory accusations in public forums. The specific focus on Hasidic Jewish spaces in this context raises red flags. It’s not about ensuring legal uniformity; it’s about stoking suspicion toward a minority community. When law is applied with a lens of bias, it ceases to serve justice and begins to serve prejudice.
Falsely Linking Tourists to National Security Threats
The article irresponsibly conflates unregistered religious centers and the presence of foreign tourists with organized criminal behavior, specifically singling out Israeli, Russian, and Ukrainian visitors as part of so-called “mafioso” networks. This kind of sweeping generalization is deeply problematic and unsupported by any verifiable evidence. Sri Lanka’s southern coast has long been a magnet for a diverse mix of travelers—backpackers, surfers, digital nomads, and cultural enthusiasts—who contribute significantly to the local economy. To suggest that an entire group of people is engaged in illegal activity based solely on their nationality is both unjust and dangerous. If individuals, regardless of origin, are found violating local laws, they should be dealt with accordingly on a case-by-case basis—not through the lazy, discriminatory lens of collective guilt or ethnic profiling.
Peddling such narratives does not protect Sri Lanka; it weakens it. By framing foreigners, especially those from certain national or religious backgrounds, as a threat, the article promotes a brand of xenophobic nationalism that is toxic for a nation dependent on global goodwill and international tourism. Israeli travelers, for instance, often bypass corporate hotel chains and instead choose to stay in locally run guesthouses, take surf lessons from Sri Lankan instructors, and spend their money in family-owned restaurants and shops. Their presence supports grassroots economic growth and fosters cultural exchange. Targeting them with broad-brush accusations rooted in fear, not facts, is both morally wrong and economically destructive. Sri Lanka needs coherent, fact-based policies—not panic-driven polemics that erode trust and drive away the very visitors who help sustain it.
Accusing Israel of War Crimes without Real Evidence
Perhaps the most inflammatory allegation made in the article is the claim that “war criminals” from Israel are entering Sri Lanka under the guise of tourism. This is an extremely serious accusation, and as such, it demands credible, verifiable evidence — which the author completely fails to present. In matters of international justice, due process is not optional; it is foundational. If someone is genuinely accused of war crimes, existing mechanisms under international law — including Interpol Red Notices, UN-mandated investigations, or bilateral extradition agreements — provide established procedures for apprehension and prosecution. None of these formal processes have been initiated against the individuals mentioned in the article. By leveling such charges without even minimal substantiation, the article crosses the line into defamation and stokes suspicion rooted more in politics than in fact.
Sri Lanka, as an island nation with full sovereign rights, is entitled to determine who may or may not enter its borders through air and sea. These decisions must be made according to law, not influenced by geopolitical pressure or emotional appeals. Importantly, Sri Lanka has no legal obligation to automatically deny entry to citizens of a particular country based solely on the actions of their government. To suggest otherwise is to promote a dangerous form of collective punishment. If this flawed logic were adopted globally, then Sri Lankan military personnel — some of whom have faced international scrutiny for their role in the civil war — would be barred from entering many Western nations. Such blanket restrictions defy the principles of international diplomacy and due process. Guilt must be established individually, not presumed through nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliation.
Misinterpreting the PTA and Local Law Enforcement
While it is perfectly valid to critique Sri Lanka’s continued use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), attempting to link this domestic legal issue to the presence of Israeli tourists or the influence of Israel more broadly is intellectually dishonest. The article points to incidents where Sri Lankans were allegedly detained for expressing anti-Israel views, suggesting they were persecuted simply for holding political opinions. If such arrests did occur and were unjust, the responsibility lies squarely with local authorities and the ambiguous nature of the PTA itself — not with visiting foreigners or religious organizations. This is fundamentally a human rights and rule-of-law issue that must be addressed through domestic legal reform. Turning a valid civil liberties concern into a geopolitical grievance is a misleading tactic that distracts from the true problem.
Moreover, the article itself concedes that Sri Lankan courts frequently find no substantial evidence against those detained under the PTA, often resulting in their eventual release. This is a crucial acknowledgment, as it demonstrates that despite flaws in enforcement, the judiciary continues to serve as a necessary counterweight to executive overreach. However, instead of focusing on strengthening legal safeguards and improving oversight mechanisms, the article bizarrely redirects blame toward foreign nations and their citizens. Such scapegoating is not only irrational but also counterproductive. Holding Israeli tourists — or any foreigners — responsible for Sri Lanka’s internal legal missteps is absurd and undermines legitimate calls for reform. The misuse of the PTA should be confronted through legal advocacy, political accountability, and civil society activism — not through nationalist rhetoric or xenophobic diversions that only deepen polarization and hinder progress.
Downplaying the Economic Role of Israeli Tourists
The article takes a particularly cynical turn by questioning whether Israeli tourists offer sufficient economic value to justify their presence in Sri Lanka. This line of reasoning is flawed on multiple levels. Tourists are not required to “prove” their worth beyond complying with a country’s legal entry procedures and respecting its laws while visiting. The global tourism industry is built on a mix of travelers — from big-budget luxury seekers to low-budget backpackers — each contributing differently but meaningfully to local economies. Israeli tourists, especially those frequenting areas like Arugam Bay during off-peak seasons, help sustain many small-scale businesses that might otherwise struggle. Their economic contribution may not always be flashy or centralized, but it is both consistent and essential for communities dependent on tourism revenue throughout the year.
Reducing the value of Israeli tourists to a narrow analysis of how much they spend is elitist and reflects a poor understanding of how tourism economies function. Many of the benefits these travelers bring are spread across grassroots sectors — from surf instructors giving lessons and tuk-tuk drivers offering rides, to guesthouse owners and food vendors making a living. This decentralized form of tourism fuels local economies in ways that aren’t captured by luxury hotel revenue alone. Attacking this group based on politicized assumptions threatens the livelihoods of countless small business owners who depend on their presence. It also risks tarnishing Sri Lanka’s image as a welcoming destination. Rather than alienate any group through sensationalist narratives, Sri Lanka must promote inclusive tourism policies that benefit all stakeholders and uphold fairness over fear.
Using Anti-Israel Rhetoric as Nationalist Theater
The article ends with a passionate condemnation of Israel, labeling it a “pariah” state, and accuses Sri Lanka of becoming its “pocket puppet.” This rhetoric is not only inflammatory but also misleading and overly simplistic. Historically, Sri Lanka has pursued a non-aligned foreign policy, carefully balancing its relationships with a diverse range of countries across different regions and political blocs. Maintaining diplomatic ties or welcoming tourists from Israel does not imply unconditional endorsement of every Israeli government policy. Effective foreign diplomacy requires pragmatism, flexibility, and a focus on national interest rather than rigid ideological purity tests. To dismiss engagement based on emotional or political bias undermines the complex realities of international relations and hampers a country’s ability to navigate an increasingly interconnected world.
Claiming that any form of bilateral engagement amounts to betrayal is a dangerous and counterproductive stance. Such rhetoric discourages diplomatic diversity and risks isolating Sri Lanka from potential economic, technological, and strategic partnerships that could contribute to its development. Moreover, using foreign policy as a tool to score domestic political points cheapens the country’s true strategic independence and undermines national unity. Constructive criticism of international partners is legitimate and necessary, but it must be grounded in factual analysis rather than emotional appeals or racial undertones. True patriotism strengthens national interest by promoting unity and thoughtful engagement—not by weaponizing identity politics or historical grievances to divide and distract.
Biased Journalism and the Rise of Selective Outrage
Ultimately, the article says more about the author’s personal prejudices than it does about any genuine threat to Sri Lankan sovereignty or national security. By singling out Jewish religious centers—particularly the Chabad Houses—and implying that entire nationalities are complicit in criminal activity, the piece veers dangerously into ethnically and religiously charged territory. This is not investigative journalism or civic vigilance; it’s sensationalism rooted in bias. If the true concern is the unauthorized operation of foreign businesses or visa overstays, those issues should be resolved through standard legal and administrative mechanisms, not inflammatory rhetoric. Making vague, sweeping accusations based on nationality or religion undermines the values of a pluralistic society. It doesn’t protect sovereignty—it compromises the social harmony that sovereignty is meant to uphold.
Sri Lanka, like any sovereign nation, has every right to enforce its laws and protect its national interests. That includes monitoring illegal activity and ensuring visa compliance, regardless of whether the offender is local or foreign. But such enforcement must be impartial, evidence-based, and rooted in due process—not shaped by public pressure campaigns built on xenophobia or anti-foreign sentiment. When media narratives begin to frame entire ethnic or religious communities as threats, under the guise of patriotism, we tread a dangerous path. Selective outrage erodes justice; selective law enforcement erodes trust. The real danger is not the presence of Israeli tourists or Jewish worshippers—it’s the weaponization of identity and legal standards to serve ideological agendas. If we care about sovereignty, we must begin by defending fairness and integrity in law, not fueling division.
Wrap Up
This article reads less like a serious critique and more like a conspiracy-laced hit piece aimed at Israeli tourists and Sri Lanka’s sovereign right to manage its foreign relations. It combines cherry-picked legal references with racially charged suspicion, turning baseless allegations into assumed facts. By applying legal standards selectively—condemning Chabad Houses while ignoring similar practices among other religious groups—it reveals an agenda that’s less about upholding the rule of law and more about vilifying a specific community. Such narratives are not grounded in a genuine concern for national integrity or legal consistency; they’re emotional propaganda cloaked in the language of public interest. When suspicion is racialized, and law is weaponized to serve ideology, what’s at stake is not justice but social harmony.
Sri Lanka must hold firm to the principles of fairness, legal clarity, and equal enforcement. That means welcoming tourists of all nationalities who comply with the law, pursuing actual offenders—whether foreign or local—through proper channels, and resisting the pressure to govern through xenophobic hysteria. The country’s tourism economy, already fragile and recovering, cannot afford to be sabotaged by narrow-minded ideologues masquerading as patriots. Nor can Sri Lanka’s diplomatic autonomy be dictated by voices that trade in paranoia over pragmatism. We must strengthen the institutions that protect sovereignty—not by closing our borders to entire communities based on innuendo, but by reaffirming our commitment to a rules-based order that treats all fairly. In the end, it is not fear that will secure the nation, but fairness.
If you found this content helpful, I kindly ask you to leave your feedback in the comments section below. Sharing it on social media would also be greatly appreciated. In order to promote meaningful and respectful dialogue, I request that you use your full name when commenting. Please note that any comments containing profanity, name-calling, or a disrespectful tone will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding and participation.