Features

“This is the last step in the destruction of Gaza”

Published

2 years ago

2024/05/19

Thilina Walpola

South Africa files case with International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

This essay is not meant to be a commentary of the current strife continuing in increasing intensity of violence in Rafah in Southern Gaza and the soon-to-be-extinct nation of Palestine. It is a ridiculously oversimplified account of the anti-Semitism that has plagued the world for centuries. And the imminent establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.

As Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said last week, “The war will continue until we have achieved complete victory. If we have to stand alone, we will stand alone. If we need to, we will fight with our fingernails. But we have much more than fingernails”.

Complete victory is not limited just to the release of hostages or the elimination of Hamas. Complete victory, in Netanyahu’s mind, and the minds of the radical-right Israeli coalition Zionist government, is the displacement, by genocide or any other means, of the entire race of Palestinians, Muslim and Christian, and the establishment of the single, sovereign Jewish State of Israel.

Anti-Semitism has existed in Europe and Russia for centuries, and has flourished in the USA since the Europeans “discovered” the Americas. Pogroms, a Russian word meaning “to wreak havoc, to demolish violently”, have been inflicted on Jewish populations living as legal citizens in European countries, especially Russia, for centuries. They increased in their intensity since the anti-Jewish riots that erupted in Odessa in 1821, and the southern and western provinces of the Russian Empire later that century.

Pogroms were usually perpetrated by anti-Semitic mobs with government and law enforcement encouragement. The attackers raped and murdered their Jewish neighbors, and looted their property with impunity, with the full knowledge that their crimes would go unpunished.

To use a word commonly used by Hitler and Mussolini, now brought back into fashion by Donald J. Trump, Jews were “vermin”, routinely and regularly exterminated, much as the infestation of cockroaches and rats that are routinely obliterated by modern civilized society. Genocide is a process, not an event, rather like pest control. When you dehumanize certain ethnic groups, likening them to rodents carrying disease capable of destroying humanity, killing them is not only necessary, it becomes an imperative. Of course, Trump has been more inclusive in his reference to additional and different varieties of vermin, like Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, people from “shithole countries” – who knows what goes on in that lunatic piece of cruelty masquerading as a mind?

What is the cause for this age-old discrimination of one specific ethnicity, the Jews, persecution that has escaped the many other races that lived in Europe? The public persona of the Jews in the middle-ages in Europe was that they were sickly and prone to disease (Judenkrankheit, the Jewish malaise), and seen as an ethnic sub-class (untermenschen, or subhuman). However, Jews had achieved prominence in medical, legal and financial professions in Europe since the 12th century. Today, in the USA, they are “accused” of controlling the banking, legal and medical professions, even Hollywood. And they face hostility, as if the perceived inherent inferiority of white community has been, in some perverted way, caused by the Jews.

Pogroms reached their logical and brutal climax with the Holocaust in Germany in the 1930s, when Hitler and the Nazis committed genocide of six million Jews from 1935 to 1945. At the end of the war, when the Allies and the Americans were confronted with the horrors of German concentration camps, they were struck with a collective guilty conscience, and forced to accept and condemn the reality of Hitler’s barbarous methods of extermination.

What to do? European and American anti-Semitism did not suddenly disappear with the Holocaust. In fact, there were significant anti-Semitic, pro-Hitler movements in America in the 1920s and 1930s. Prominent Americans like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were friends with Adolf Hitler and led these anti-Semitic and isolationist movements in America. Anti-Semitism lingers in Europe and the USA to the present day, a deepening resentment against the prominence and success of Jews in public, professional and economic life.

The 2017 anti-Semitic riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, with its slogan “The Jews will not replace us” epitomizing the white-supremacist, neo-Nazi movement, had the support of a significant section of the white population, including the president of the nation. This white supremacist movement, which now encompasses in its hatred not only Jews, but Blacks and non-white immigrants, is the phenomenon that keeps an evil monster like Trump currently in line for a second term of the presidency.

Hatred of immigrants, fleeing personal threats to their lives and liberty from their home countries, “yearning to breathe free” – the very definition of asylum seekers – has increased in intensity after the Trump years. Perhaps after the election of the nation’s first Black president. These are the wretches, the huddled masses, brutally and frequently abused by Trump in his political rants as assassins, rapists, drug traffickers, denizens of mental asylums, the latest a comparison to the fictional movie cannibal Hannibal Lecter. And of course, dark-skinned people from “shithole countries” who poison the blood of the citizens of a country of immigrants with the most mixed blood – poisonous and pure – from every country in the world.

The inhumane barbarity of Hitler’s “Final Solution”, when six million Jews and five million human beings of “impure blood” were tortured and exterminated in gas ovens in concentration camps, was exposed to the world after WW II. And the world’s fingers were pointed not only at the Nazis, but at all those Europeans who had committed anti-Semitic violence in the past and Germans who did nothing while Hitler committed genocide, the smoke and stink of human flesh billowing from concentration camps right before their eyes.

Unlike numerous previous genocides, improved communications ensured that the Holocaust was too well known in the world as a crime against humanity to be swept under the carpet, or justified in the name of “civilization”.

So the Western Allies, the Rulers of the post WW II world, came to a decision, to the advantage of both themselves and the Jews. The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British government in 1917, justified Western Allies’ support for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

In 1947, as much as 97% of the land in Palestine was owned by Palestinian Arabs and Christians, just three percent by Jews. Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, constituted the vast majority of the population of Palestine. After World War II, Jews in Europe were encouraged to emigrate to the “Holy Land”, with the added incentive that the land had been promised to the Jews by the Christian God, Yahweh Himself.

An article written by Dr. V.J.M. de Silva, “The Israeli Palestine Conflict – Some Random Thoughts” (The Island, August 12, 2014) tends to support colonial conquest of Palestine by European Jews, citing the verse found in Genesis 17.8: “And I will give unto thee (Abraham) and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God”, which gave divine legitimacy to the Jewish occupation and ownership of Palestine. The Promised Land.

The late Hameed Abdul Karim, Sri Lankan journalist and activist in the defense of the Palestinian cause, responded, “the media has projected the Palestinian catastrophe as a Muslim issue and not a humanitarian one, as it certainly is: that the conflict in Palestine is between Jews and Muslims. They have subtly left out of the picture the Palestinian Christians, who made up 20% of the population (in 1947)”. Mr. Karim goes on to say that the first village destroyed during the 1948 Israeli war against Palestine (named The Nakba, literally “the catastrophe”) was a Christian Village named Deir Yassin, when over 240 Palestinian Christians were lined up against walls and shot in cold blood by a Zionist terrorist organization, Irgun, headed by future Israeli Prime Minister and co-recipient with Egyptian President Sadat, in 1979, of the Noble Prize (for Peace, no less), Menachem Begin.

Since the Nakba, Jews, with the unqualified financial and military support of the Americans, have accelerated the establishment of a single-state Jewish state of Israel. There have been proposals over the years by various international mediators to establish a two-state solution, which have all failed because no agreement as to the proposed terms of settlement could be reached by the protagonists.

The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which seems to have all the elements of a false-flag operation, with the complicity of Netanyahu and his radical right-wing cabinet, have given the perfect excuse for the Zionists to complete the job – the original goal of the extermination of the Palestinians and the establishment of the Promised Land.

President Biden may have at last realized that the ultimate motive of the right-wing Israelis was always the establishment of the sovereign Jewish state of Israel, that the Jews, especially under the leadership of Netanyahu, never had any intention for a two-state solution. Biden has threatened Netanyahu that unless the Israeli Defense Forces cease their genocidal operations in Rafah in Southern Gaza, work towards a negotiated ceasefire and a two-state solution, Americans will be forced to suspend military and financial aid to Israel. To which, as noted above, Netanyahu has thumbed his nose, saying that they will stand alone, that they already have the necessary weapons, including an estimated stockpile range of between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads – provided by the USA over the past 76 years – to complete the job.

Of course, the nations of the Arab world are prohibited by the United States from developing a nuclear arsenal as a defense against a possible nuclear attack by Israel, on pain of being bombed to the Stone Age. The hallmark hypocritical double standard of the “Free World”.

Biden’s demands for a ceasefire and political negotiations for a two-state solution has aroused vociferous protests from the powerful American Jewish lobby, members of which have always identified themselves as Jews first, Americans second.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opened hearings on Thursday, May 16 on a case filed by South Africa “that the situation in Gaza has reached a new and horrific stage, that Israel’s actions in Gaza are part of the end game. This is the last step in the destruction of Gaza”.

The election of Trump in November, which according to current national polls, seems, incredibly, an even money chance, will help Israel expedite the complete destruction of Palestine. Trump will also encourage Russia to invade other independent European nations after Ukraine, seeing that Trump is a good buddy and admirer of both Netanyahu and Putin. And with the current bromance flourishing between Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, who are currently celebrating 75 years of diplomatic relations in Peking with majestic pomp and military circumstance, Trump will be drooling for the day when he may be accepted, even as a lowly, lapdog partner, of this unholy alliance of his pantheon of strongmen.

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

3 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

3 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

3 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.