Features
Four takeaways from the UN Security Council resolution on Gaza
By Uditha Devapriya
The recent UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza – from which the US, not surprisingly, abstained – marks a crossroads in the history of Israel and the future of Palestine. The resolution was motivated, among other developments, by Israel’s massive military build-up and its impending invasion of Rafah, a narrow stretch of land by the Gaza-Egypt border where more than a million Palestinians, driven from their homes by the IDF’s ruthless attacks, lie huddled, uncertain of what may happen to them.
The resolution followed another, proposed by the United States, vetoed by China and Russia, and criticised by much of the Global South, which denounced Hamas and placed more prominence on the return of Israeli hostages. Beijing and Moscow argued that it did not go far enough, while Washington argued that China and Russia were “playing politics with the ceasefire” and conniving to “isolate the US internationally ahead of the interests of the Palestinians in Gaza.” The US itself had vetoed three resolutions before, mostly on the basis that these “did not mention Israel’s right of self-defence.”
The latest resolution is important, in that sense, for four reasons. First, and most important, it indicates the US’s growing frustrations with the Israeli government. Since October last year the US has been valiantly – or pathetically, depending on how you see it – batting for its main ally in the Middle-East, only to see that ally become more isolated on the world stage. The lack of a constructive response from Israel – it is, after all, headed by the most right-wing regime the country has seen since its founding – and the unwillingness to respond to and engage with its critics has only upended its relations with the West.
The US’s decision to abstain, in fact, followed weeks and months of confrontations between Jerusalem and some of its staunchest Western allies, including the European Union. These confrontations have taken place in the backdrop of some of the most vocal demonstrations against the Israeli government in decades. These protests have been joined by some of the most strident Jewish critics of Israel as well. Such developments have shifted the narrative so much that it is no longer possible to equate criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism. The West, belatedly as it may be, has come to terms with this.
Second, the resolution reflects a turnaround in the liberal mainstream’s attitude to Israel and what it is doing in Gaza. The most belligerent, hawkish government Jerusalem has seen in decades may invoke its right to self-defence at every opportunity it gets, but even the most passionate defenders of Israel are rethinking that stance and wondering whether it is in Israel’s interest to defend itself so aggressively, undermining the norms of international law. This is more or less the sentiment of the US Democratic Party’s most pro-Israel Senator, Chuck Schumer, who not only has advocated for elections in Israel but also questioned the tenability, and feasibility, of its military offensives.
To be sure, the likes of Schumer are not questioning Israel’s right to self-defence. But they are wondering whether Israel’s interests can ever be served by a blind commitment to military action. That commitment has not helped its case. Israel had very few friends in the Global South before October 7; since October 7 it has lost quite a number of friends in the Global North too. The Israeli government’s rabid response to these developments – which, basically, amounts to badmouthing the slightest critique of Israel that Western governments, including the UK, put out – has only alienated and isolated it further.
Third, artists and intellectuals, even those critical of anti-Semitism, have sounded the alarm of Israel’s disproportionate response to the October 7 attacks. The situation has changed so much that a Jewish director of a film about the Holocaust can get up on stage at the Oscars and decry the situation in Gaza, and get a standing ovation. This is in stark contrast to, say, the 1977 Oscars, where Vanessa Redgrave – who won an Oscar for her role in Julia, an out and out anti-fascist and anti-Nazi film – was booed when she denounced “Zionist hoodlums” in her acceptance speech. The Jewish screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, by contrast, received a standing ovation when he criticised Redgrave in his speech.
Indeed, Hollywood’s shifting response to Israel and Palestine has been one of the more intriguing takeaways from the conflict in Gaza. During the Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Hollywood rallied almost unconditionally around Israel. The most liberal and the most radical actors, directors, and screenwriters spoke in its support, organising marches, protests, and funds. This is because it was possible, at that time, to view Israel as a beleaguered, besieged smaller power – even when the US was rushing in millions of dollars of economic and military aid, and even when its Prime Ministers were denying the rights of Palestinians and advocating for territorial expansion.
Such sentiments no longer hold today. In the 1960s the West’s sympathy for Israel more or less centred on the Shoah, the Holocaust. Today, even Holocaust survivors and their children are decrying what the Israeli government is doing, supposedly “in their name.” It goes without saying that very few in Hollywood are as dogmatically supportive of Israel and of whatever it does as it used to be. Jonathan Glazer’s speech at the Oscars, for instance, provoked a rather puerile letter from certain Jewish figures in Hollywood, but also compelled much support from far more authoritative Jewish artists, including Tony Kushner. No less than Steven Spielberg, the grand old man of Hollywood, issued a statement critical of both anti-Semitism and “the killing of innocent women and children in Gaza.”
Underlying all these developments is a fourth, in my view the most critical: that even in terms of military superiority, Israel has lost the plot. As Nilanthan Niruthan, director of the Centre for Law and Warfare (CLAW) in Colombo, Sri Lanka, pointed out four days after October 7, the Hamas attacks “demonstrated a major failure of intelligence, but more importantly, it displayed an even larger failure of imagination.” It showed that not even the most lavishly funded security installations can keep a discontented people, and political and terrorist outfits speaking on their behalf, at bay.
Israel’s response to this has been to ramp up its offensive in Gaza, to force civilians into the most inhospitable surroundings and corners. That has only got it into a tight spot: a spectacular military failure followed by a spectacular moral failure. The US learnt what a combination of these failures would lead to in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Israel has not learnt that lesson, or if it has, has yet to indicate that it has.
The latest UNSC resolution, in that sense, is the most crucial crossroads in this conflict. As Stephen Walt puts it, the implications for the US are only too clear: “Instead of focusing on whether pressure on Israel would work,” he points out, “the real question to ask is simply whether it is in America’s strategic or moral interest to be actively complicit in a vast and worsening humanitarian tragedy.” He concludes on a rather terse note: “Even if the United States cannot stop it, it doesn’t have to help make it worse.”
Uditha Devapriya is a writer, researcher, and analyst based in Sri Lanka who contributes to a number of publications on topics such as history, art and culture, politics, and foreign policy. He can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Features
Misinterpreting President Dissanayake on National Reconciliation
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has been investing his political capital in going to the public to explain some of the most politically sensitive and controversial issues. At a time when easier political choices are available, the president is choosing the harder path of confronting ethnic suspicion and communal fears. There are three issues in particular on which the president’s words have generated strong reactions. These are first with regard to Buddhist pilgrims going to the north of the country with nationalist motivations. Second is the controversy relating to the expansion of the Tissa Raja Maha Viharaya, a recently constructed Buddhist temple in Kankesanturai which has become a flashpoint between local Tamil residents and Sinhala nationalist groups. Third is the decision not to give the war victory a central place in the Independence Day celebrations.
Even in the opposition, when his party held only three seats in parliament, Anura Kumara Dissanayake took his role as a public educator seriously. He used to deliver lengthy, well researched and easily digestible speeches in parliament. He continues this practice as president. It can be seen that his statements are primarily meant to elevate the thinking of the people and not to win votes the easy way. The easy way to win votes whether in Sri Lanka or elsewhere in the world is to rouse nationalist and racist sentiments and ride that wave. Sri Lanka’s post independence political history shows that narrow ethnic mobilisation has often produced short term electoral gains but long term national damage.
Sections of the opposition and segments of the general public have been critical of the president for taking these positions. They have claimed that the president is taking these positions in order to obtain more Tamil votes or to appease minority communities. The same may be said in reverse of those others who take contrary positions that they seek the Sinhala votes. These political actors who thrive on nationalist mobilisation have attempted to portray the president’s statements as an abandonment of the majority community. The president’s actions need to be understood within the larger framework of national reconciliation and long term national stability.
Reconciler’s Duty
When the president referred to Buddhist pilgrims from the south going to the north, he was not speaking about pilgrims visiting long established Buddhist heritage sites such as Nagadeepa or Kandarodai. His remarks were directed at a specific and highly contentious development, the recently built Buddhist temple in Kankesanturai and those built elsewhere in the recent past in the north and east. The temple in Kankesanturai did not emerge from the religious needs of a local Buddhist community as there is none in that area. It has been constructed on land that was formerly owned and used by Tamil civilians and which came under military occupation as a high security zone. What has made the issue of the temple particularly controversial is that it was established with the support of the security forces.
The controversy has deepened because the temple authorities have sought to expand the site from approximately one acre to nearly fourteen acres on the basis that there was a historic Buddhist temple in that area up to the colonial period. However, the Tamil residents of the area fear that expansion would further displace surrounding residents and consolidate a permanent Buddhist religious presence in the present period in an area where the local population is overwhelmingly Hindu. For many Tamils in Kankesanturai, the issue is not Buddhism as a religion but the use of religion as a vehicle for territorial assertion and demographic changes in a region that bore the brunt of the war. Likewise, there are other parts of the north and east where other temples or places of worship have been established by the military personnel in their camps during their war-time occupation and questions arise regarding the future when these camps are finally closed.
There are those who have actively organised large scale pilgrimages from the south to make the Tissa temple another important religious site. These pilgrimages are framed publicly as acts of devotion but are widely perceived locally as demonstrations of dominance. Each such visit heightens tension, provokes protest by Tamil residents, and risks confrontation. For communities that experienced mass displacement, military occupation and land loss, the symbolism of a state backed religious structure on contested land with the backing of the security forces is impossible to separate from memories of war and destruction. A president committed to reconciliation cannot remain silent in the face of such provocations, however uncomfortable it may be to challenge sections of the majority community.
High-minded leadership
The controversy regarding the president’s Independence Day speech has also generated strong debate. In that speech the president did not refer to the military victory over the LTTE and also did not use the term “war heroes” to describe soldiers. For many Sinhala nationalist groups, the absence of these references was seen as an attempt to diminish the sacrifices of the armed forces. The reality is that Independence Day means very different things to different communities. In the north and east the same day is marked by protest events and mourning and as a “Black Day”, symbolising the consolidation of a state they continue to experience as excluding them and not empathizing with the full extent of their losses.
By way of contrast, the president’s objective was to ensure that Independence Day could be observed as a day that belonged to all communities in the country. It is not correct to assume that the president takes these positions in order to appease minorities or secure electoral advantage. The president is only one year into his term and does not need to take politically risky positions for short term electoral gains. Indeed, the positions he has taken involve confronting powerful nationalist political forces that can mobilise significant opposition. He risks losing majority support for his statements. This itself indicates that the motivation is not electoral calculation.
President Dissanayake has recognized that Sri Lanka’s long term political stability and economic recovery depend on building trust among communities that once peacefully coexisted and then lived through decades of war. Political leadership is ultimately tested by the willingness to say what is necessary rather than what is politically expedient. The president’s recent interventions demonstrate rare national leadership and constitute an attempt to shift public discourse away from ethnic triumphalism and toward a more inclusive conception of nationhood. Reconciliation cannot take root if national ceremonies reinforce the perception of victory for one community and defeat for another especially in an internal conflict.
BY Jehan Perera
Features
Recovery of LTTE weapons
I have read a newspaper report that the Special Task Force of Sri Lanka Police, with help of Military Intelligence, recovered three buried yet well-preserved 84mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rocket launchers used by the LTTE, in the Kudumbimalai area, Batticaloa.
These deadly weapons were used by the LTTE SEA TIGER WING to attack the Sri Lanka Navy ships and craft in 1990s. The first incident was in February 1997, off Iranativu island, in the Gulf of Mannar.
Admiral Cecil Tissera took over as Commander of the Navy on 27 January, 1997, from Admiral Mohan Samarasekara.
The fight against the LTTE was intensified from 1996 and the SLN was using her Vanguard of the Navy, Fast Attack Craft Squadron, to destroy the LTTE’s littoral fighting capabilities. Frequent confrontations against the LTTE Sea Tiger boats were reported off Mullaitivu, Point Pedro and Velvetiturai areas, where SLN units became victorious in most of these sea battles, except in a few incidents where the SLN lost Fast Attack Craft.

Carl Gustaf recoilless rocket launchers
The intelligence reports confirmed that the LTTE Sea Tigers was using new recoilless rocket launchers against aluminium-hull FACs, and they were deadly at close quarter sea battles, but the exact type of this weapon was not disclosed.
The following incident, which occurred in February 1997, helped confirm the weapon was Carl Gustaf 84 mm Recoilless gun!
DATE: 09TH FEBRUARY, 1997, morning 0600 hrs.
LOCATION: OFF IRANATHIVE.
FACs: P 460 ISRAEL BUILT, COMMANDED BY CDR MANOJ JAYESOORIYA
P 452 CDL BUILT, COMMANDED BY LCDR PM WICKRAMASINGHE (ON TEMPORARY COMMAND. PROPER OIC LCDR N HEENATIGALA)
OPERATED FROM KKS.
CONFRONTED WITH LTTE ATTACK CRAFT POWERED WITH FOUR 250 HP OUT BOARD MOTORS.
TARGET WAS DESTROYED AND ONE LTTE MEMBER WAS CAPTURED.
LEADING MARINE ENGINEERING MECHANIC OF THE FAC CAME UP TO THE BRIDGE CARRYING A PROJECTILE WHICH WAS FIRED BY THE LTTE BOAT, DURING CONFRONTATION, WHICH PENETRATED THROUGH THE FAC’s HULL, AND ENTERED THE OICs CABIN (BETWEEN THE TWO BUNKS) AND HIT THE AUXILIARY ENGINE ROOM DOOR AND HAD FALLEN DOWN WITHOUT EXPLODING. THE ENGINE ROOM DOOR WAS HEAVILY DAMAGED LOOSING THE WATER TIGHT INTEGRITY OF THE FAC.
THE PROJECTILE WAS LATER HANDED OVER TO THE NAVAL WEAPONS EXPERTS WHEN THE FACs RETURNED TO KKS. INVESTIGATIONS REVEALED THE WEAPON USED BY THE ENEMY WAS 84 mm CARL GUSTAF SHOULDER-FIRED RECOILLESS GUN AND THIS PROJECTILE WAS AN ILLUMINATER BOMB OF ONE MILLION CANDLE POWER. BUT THE ATTACKERS HAS FAILED TO REMOVE THE SAFETY PIN, THEREFORE THE BOMB WAS NOT ACTIVATED.

Sea Tigers
Carl Gustaf 84 mm recoilless gun was named after Carl Gustaf Stads Gevärsfaktori, which, initially, produced it. Sweden later developed the 84mm shoulder-fired recoilless gun by the Royal Swedish Army Materiel Administration during the second half of 1940s as a crew served man- portable infantry support gun for close range multi-role anti-armour, anti-personnel, battle field illumination, smoke screening and marking fire.
It is confirmed in Wikipedia that Carl Gustaf Recoilless shoulder-fired guns were used by the only non-state actor in the world – the LTTE – during the final Eelam War.
It is extremely important to check the batch numbers of the recently recovered three launchers to find out where they were produced and other details like how they ended up in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka?
By Admiral Ravindra C. Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc (Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Features
Yellow Beatz … a style similar to K-pop!
Yes, get ready to vibe with Yellow Beatz, Sri Lanka’s awesome girl group, keen to take Sri Lankan music to the world with a style similar to K-pop!
With high-energy beats and infectious hooks, these talented ladies are here to shake up the music scene.
Think bold moves, catchy hooks, and, of course, spicy versions of old Sinhala hits, and Yellow Beatz is the package you won’t want to miss!
According to a spokesman for the group, Yellow Beatz became a reality during the Covid period … when everyone was stuck at home, in lockdown.
“First we interviewed girls, online, and selected a team that blended well, as four voices, and then started rehearsals. One of the cover songs we recorded, during those early rehearsals, unexpectedly went viral on Facebook. From that moment onward, we continued doing cover songs, and we received a huge response. Through that, we were able to bring back some beautiful Sri Lankan musical creations that were being forgotten, and introduce them to the new generation.”
The team members, I am told, have strong musical skills and with proper training their goal is to become a vocal group recognised around the world.
Believe me, their goal, they say, is not only to take Sri Lanka’s name forward, in the music scene, but to bring home a Grammy Award, as well.
“We truly believe we can achieve this with the love and support of everyone in Sri Lanka.”
The year 2026 is very special for Yellow Beatz as they have received an exceptional opportunity to represent Sri Lanka at the World Championships of Performing Arts in the USA.
Under the guidance of Chris Raththara, the Director for Sri Lanka, and with the blessings of all Sri Lankans, the girls have a great hope that they can win this milestone.
“We believe this will be a moment of great value for us as Yellow Beatz, and also for all Sri Lankans, and it will be an important inspiration for the future of our country.”
Along with all the preparation for the event in the USA, they went on to say they also need to manage their performances, original song recordings, and everything related.

The year 2026 is very special for Yellow Beatz
“We have strong confidence in ourselves and in our sincere intentions, because we are a team that studies music deeply, researches within the field, and works to take the uniqueness of Sri Lankan identity to the world.”
At present, they gather at the Voices Lab Academy, twice a week, for new creations and concert rehearsals.
This project was created by Buddhika Dayarathne who is currently working as a Pop Vocal lecturer at SLTC Campus. Voice Lab Academy is also his own private music academy and Yellow Beatz was formed through that platform.
Buddhika is keen to take Sri Lankan music to the world with a style similar to K-Pop and Yellow Beatz began as a result of that vision. With that same aim, we all work together as one team.
“Although it was a little challenging for the four of us girls to work together at first, we have united for our goal and continue to work very flexibly and with dedication. Our parents and families also give their continuous blessings and support for this project,” Rameesha, Dinushi, Newansa and Risuri said.
Last year, Yellow Beatz released their first original song, ‘Ihirila’ , and with everything happening this year, they are also preparing for their first album.
-
Features3 days agoMy experience in turning around the Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka (MBSL) – Episode 3
-
Business4 days agoZone24x7 enters 2026 with strong momentum, reinforcing its role as an enterprise AI and automation partner
-
Business3 days agoRemotely conducted Business Forum in Paris attracts reputed French companies
-
Business3 days agoFour runs, a thousand dreams: How a small-town school bowled its way into the record books
-
Business3 days agoComBank and Hayleys Mobility redefine sustainable mobility with flexible leasing solutions
-
Business4 days agoHNB recognized among Top 10 Best Employers of 2025 at the EFC National Best Employer Awards
-
Business4 days agoGREAT 2025–2030: Sri Lanka’s Green ambition meets a grid reality check
-
Editorial6 days agoAll’s not well that ends well?

