Debunking The Sunday Times’ Call for a Pro-Palestinian Foreign Policy

This morning, a friend of mine who lives in Australia asked me an interesting question: “Are there any online newspapers in Sri Lanka that aren’t politically biased and report the truth without distortion?” Sadly, I had to tell her that the answer is no. None of our mainstream news outlets report objectively. Instead, most are heavily influenced by political affiliations and are constantly trying to appear politically correct rather than factually accurate. Even worse, many of them don’t investigate international stories themselves. They simply translate foreign news reports—often without any fact-checking—into local languages and present them as truth. This becomes especially concerning when it comes to complex and sensitive issues like the Israel–Hamas conflict, where misinformation can be both harmful and divisive. I explained that the local press often repackages unverified foreign news.

A clear example of this issue appeared in The Sunday Times on July 20, 2025. The column in question wasn’t just subtly biased—it was a direct and clumsy attempt to portray Israel as isolated and condemned by the global community. It wasn’t journalism; it was propaganda dressed up as commentary. The writer echoed unverified narratives that seemed to originate from partisan or questionable foreign sources, repeating them without scrutiny. What’s more concerning is that this column fits a larger pattern—a steady stream of articles that seem designed to smear Israel, regardless of context or nuance. Rather than promoting honest discussion, this kind of writing fosters polarization and misunderstanding. It does a great disservice to readers who rely on the press for clarity. In this post, I’ll expose the column’s flaws and how its bias distorts global events.

Hiding a Sword behind a speech Banner

The moment you read the columnist’s name—Javid Yusuf—you can almost predict his background and stance on the Israel–Hamas conflict. As I mentioned earlier, his article is a clumsy and deliberate attempt to portray Israel as globally isolated and condemned. He begins shaping this narrative by shielding terrorism behind the guise of free speech. His piece, titled “A Time for Moral Clarity: Why Sri Lanka Must Recalibrate Its Foreign Policy on Israel, Palestine, and Gaza” opens with a reference to the arrests of Mohamed Rushdi and Mohamed Suhail under the “draconian” Prevention of Terrorism Act—an incident I previously addressed in my article “From Sticker to Suspect: What Happened?” Yusuf frames their “crime” as merely displaying a “Free Palestine” sticker, downplaying the context and setting the tone for his misleading narrative.

Whether the Prevention of Terrorism Act is democratic is a separate issue. What’s relevant here is that the two young men were arrested because their actions were considered a national security threat. Regardless of how it’s framed, the slogan “Free Gaza” is now widely associated with Hamas—a group designated as a terrorist organization by much of the international community. What the columnist conveniently omits is this: during the investigation, authorities discovered that the father of one of the arrested youths had close ties with Zaharan Hashim, the mastermind of the 2019 Easter bombings that killed 270 people—including foreigners—injured over 500 and left many permanently disabled. According to Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala, the father had disappeared by then. Yet this critical context is left out to portray the arrests as unjustified suppression of peaceful dissent.

Mixing your Apples with my Oranges

The writer claimed that arresting someone for publicly standing in solidarity with Palestine reveals a critical flaw in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. By framing it this way, The Sunday Times editor Sinha Migara Ranatunga, deputy editor Amin Isadeen, and columnist Javid Yusuf subtly mislead their readers. They deliberately blur the lines between Sri Lanka’s national security concerns, foreign policy, and the complex Israel–Hamas conflict, mixing these distinct issues to create confusion. This misrepresentation hides the true reasons behind the arrests, which are based on national security. By reducing this serious matter to a foreign policy debate, the article misleads the public and irresponsibly distorts the situation, especially amid the ongoing tensions in the Middle East and their potential impact on Sri Lanka’s diplomatic relations and internal safety.

While I do not intend to personally attack the editorial team, this kind of journalistic malpractice must be called out firmly. Distorting facts and conflating separate issues severely undermines public understanding and obstructs constructive discussion. Responsible journalism demands clear, accurate reporting that separates national security concerns from foreign policy opinions. Failure to do so not only misinform readers but also damages the credibility of the entire media landscape. At a time when global tensions are high and misinformation spreads quickly, media outlets have a critical duty to provide clarity and treat sensitive topics with the care, nuance, and responsibility they deserve rather than pushing misleading and divisive narratives that confuse rather than inform.

Dressing up terror in tattered Legacies

Next Mr. Yusuf argues that Sri Lanka has a proud legacy of standing in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, claiming this stance was rooted in anti-colonial struggle, moral leadership, and unwavering support for oppressed peoples worldwide. He cites Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike’s opposition to Israeli actions during the 1956 Suez Crisis and his supposedly principled foreign policy that defended besieged nations. He also praises Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the world’s first woman Prime Minister, for severing diplomatic ties with Israel in 1970, citing its repeated violations of international law and systemic dispossession of the Palestinian people. Yet such lofty claims ignore the domestic political motives behind these gestures, including efforts to court minority votes, and they overlook the many moral contradictions that defined their real leadership and legacy.

Both S.W.R.D. and Sirimavo Bandaranaike recognized the electoral value of the Muslim minority, especially in constituencies where their votes could decide the outcome. In 1956, S.W.R.D. strategically courted minority groups, including Muslims, to unseat the UNP’s dominance. His vocal opposition to Israel during the Suez Crisis wasn’t moral outrage—it was political calculation, tailored to Muslim sentiments. At home, he introduced the Sinhala Only Act, pandering to Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism at the expense of Tamil-speaking citizens. Sirimavo continued this dual strategy, breaking ties with Israel early in her term to secure Muslim votes. Their so-called moral stance on Palestine was little more than opportunism disguised as principle—foreign policy guided by electoral math, not ethical conviction. Mr. Yusuf, let’s not romanticize political gamesmanship.

Pulling the Sri Lankans’ Heartstrings

The columnist also condemns successive Sri Lankan governments—from Mahinda Rajapaksa to Anura Kumara Dissanayake—for failing to take a tough stance against Israel. He accuses them of ignoring alleged genocide and criticizes policies like labor export to Israel and allowing Israeli tourists unrestricted access to Sri Lanka. However, this perspective ignores Sri Lanka’s fragile post-bankruptcy reality, where foreign remittances from workers abroad are vital for economic recovery. Exporting labor to Israel provides thousands of Sri Lankan families with essential income, while tourism supports local businesses. In a complex global environment, prioritizing economic stability over ideological posturing is pragmatic. Sri Lanka cannot afford to isolate itself or jeopardize diplomatic and economic ties by adopting a narrowly defined pro-Palestinian stance, especially when that cause is deeply divided and linked to extremist violence.

Sri Lanka’s foreign policy must be firmly grounded in pragmatism and national interest, not emotional appeals or false narratives. The so-called Palestinian cause was never a genuine movement for justice or statehood; it has been a fabricated issue from the start, manipulated by extremist groups for political gain and regional influence. It offers Sri Lanka no real benefits—no trade, investment, or diplomatic support. Aligning with such a fabricated and divisive cause would seriously jeopardize national security and harm Sri Lanka’s credibility internationally. Non-alignment is not moral ambiguity but a rational, sovereign strategy to protect national interests effectively. This approach allows Sri Lanka to engage with global powers on its own terms, securing survival and sustainable growth in a complex, multipolar world where truth and practicality must consistently guide foreign policy decisions.

Stoking Fears with Boogeyman Tales

In a last-ditch effort to evoke sympathy, the columnist claims Sri Lanka risks alienating the Muslim world—especially countries that have provided employment, investment, and diplomatic support—by abandoning the Palestinian cause. However, this argument relies on outdated assumptions. Today, Arab nations prioritize economic growth, regional stability, and countering Iran, not symbolic gestures toward a fractured cause. Supporting Hamas, even indirectly, does nothing for Sri Lanka’s interests. Instead, it signals a willingness to align with extremist elements, risking both Western goodwill and partnerships with moderate Arab states. The emotional pull of the “Palestinian cause” no longer translates into political or economic dividends. Sri Lanka must base its foreign policy on pragmatism, not guilt or fear. Sentiment does not build trade, attract investors, or secure diplomatic strength.

The columnist also distorts the region’s geopolitical reality. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain no longer see Hamas as a noble resistance group but as an Iranian-backed destabilizing force. Publicly, they may issue pro-Palestinian statements, but privately they are relieved to see Hamas weakened. Many Gulf leaders even regard Israel’s operations in Gaza as necessary, albeit controversial, steps to restore stability. Aligning with Hamas now could backfire, damaging Sri Lanka’s image among progressive Arab regimes and key international partners alike. In this evolving Middle East, refusing to endorse Hamas is not isolationist—it’s realistic and strategically prudent. Pretending Arab support hinges solely on Palestine is not only factually wrong; it misjudges the priorities of countries increasingly focused on economic development, diplomacy, and distancing themselves from radicalism. Sri Lanka must wake up to this important shift.

Playing the False Equivalence Game

Then the writer reiterates that Sri Lanka should ban Israeli tourists, just like the Maldives did. It’s at this point that the cat jumps out of the bag—his real intention is not justice but the international isolation of Israel. He wants Sri Lanka to mimic the Maldives, a nation governed by Sharia law with a Muslim-majority population. The comparison is absurd. Sri Lanka is a pluralistic democracy with its own values and interests. He ends with a “call to action”: naming and condemning Israel, suspending labor exports, and cracking down on foreign-run businesses. Now let’s remind Mr. Yusuf and his ilk—the Sri Lankans who died on October 7th were brutally murdered by Hamas terrorists, not Israeli soldiers. That crucial fact cannot be ignored, denied, or distorted.

As for calling out Israeli actions in Gaza by name, Israel has the right to defend itself and at least the modern politicians know the allegations of genocide promoted by CNN, BBC, and Al Jazzera from where the Sunday Leader copies its news are nothing but fabricated tales. As for the so called illegal business activities by foreign nationals, the columnist should visit Hikkaduwa and Unawatuna and report about the Russian business establishments there, a country attacking Ukrain on the grounds of false justifictations. In Hiriketiya Australians have a strong presence where its difficult to start a business without their support but no the columnist doesn’t have a problem with that.

Wrap Up

Finally, it is vital to remind Mr. Yusuf and others with similar views that Sri Lanka cannot afford to become a proxy battlefield for foreign ideological conflicts. Our nation faces serious challenges such as economic recovery, political stability, and maintaining social cohesion across diverse communities and ethnic groups. Allowing external agendas to influence domestic or foreign policy risks undermining the very foundation of our society. Protecting national sovereignty and security must always take priority over foreign ideological loyalties. The focus should remain on peace and unity within our borders. This requires clearly distinguishing legitimate activism from dangerous extremism that threatens social harmony and public safety. Sri Lanka’s future depends on avoiding entanglement in global proxy wars that bring no tangible benefits but only cause division, distraction, and conflict among its people.

I urge both the public and law enforcement authorities to stay alert, vigilant, and discerning when confronted with narratives that blur the lines between peaceful protest and support for violence or terrorism. Such misleading rhetoric risks destabilizing the nation and damaging trust between communities and authorities, which is essential for social cohesion and national unity. It is imperative that citizens and officials focus on responsible discourse based firmly on Sri Lanka’s national interest, rather than being manipulated as pawns in foreign ideological struggles. Only through unity, clarity, and prioritizing security and prosperity can Sri Lanka overcome its internal and external challenges. This path leads to a safer, stronger, and more inclusive nation for all Sri Lankans, securing peace and sustainable long-term progress in difficult times.

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.