Features
Israel’s Gaza Campaign Is the Gravest Moral Crisis of Our Time
The crisis in Gaza shows those nations that should be defending international law and humanitarian values to be openly betraying their commitments.
by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
I write this essay as a senior American Buddhist monk of Jewish ethnicity who has been deeply distressed by Israel’s military assault on the population of Gaza. I see this campaign as perhaps the gravest moral crisis of our time. The blistering bombardments, the ever-mounting death toll, the deadly blockade of vital essentials, the annihilation of innocent human lives—all these events sear the moral consciousness like a red-hot iron and demand a loud shout from the depths of the soul: “For God’s sake, stop it!” Indeed, in its own discreet tones, the International Court of Justice has issued such a shout, yet it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Given the many instances of sheer inhumanity unfolding over just two decades—in Iraq, Syria, Tigray, Myanmar, and Ukraine—why should I highlight Gaza as the major moral calamity of our time? I will lay down five reasons why this is the case.
The first concerns the sheer intensity of the assault. Arif Husain, the chief economist at the United Nation’s World Food Program, bears testimony to this with his remark: “I’ve been doing this for the past two decades, and I’ve been to all kinds of conflicts and all kinds of crises. And, for me, this is unprecedented because of, one, the magnitude, the scale, the entire population of a particular place; second, the severity; and third, the speed at which this is happening, at which this has unfolded.”
Unlike the Nazi Holocaust and other war crimes—including Russia’s blood-curdling operations in Ukraine—the genocide in Gaza unfolds live on our television and computer screens, right before our eyes.
The figures representing deaths, injuries, and destruction in Gaza bear out Husain’s words. We are told that 70% of the victims are women and children; that doctors, medical staff, journalists, and university professors are being targeted; that all of Gaza has become a death camp where no one is safe anywhere. We learn of whole families being liquidated at the drop of a bomb, three generations wiped out in an instant; of kids losing their parents and all their siblings, left with no surviving family members in the world; of hospitals being shuttered and their patients forced to walk miles to designated safety zones, only to be hit by sniper fire en route or struck by rockets when they arrive.
On top of the deaths, injuries, and demolitions directly caused by the bombardments, Israel’s near-total blockade of vital essentials—food, water, fuel, and medicines—drives the spike of suffering even more deeply into the hearts of Gaza’s population, subjecting displaced people to extremes of hunger, thirst, and infectious disease. Now that the major Western donors are suspending their funding of UNRWA, the U.N. relief agency for Palestinian refugees, the very lifeline for the people of Gaza is being cut. Like a ravenous hawk, famine hovers just above the strip, ready to strike.
The second factor that underscores the moral gravity of the crisis in Gaza is its visibility, its living immediacy. Unlike the Nazi Holocaust and other war crimes—including Russia’s blood-curdling operations in Ukraine—the genocide in Gaza unfolds live on our television and computer screens, right before our eyes. The images jump out from the screen and beg us to act: children with amputated limbs, their bodies torn and broken; babies abandoned in powerless incubators; apartment buildings and universities collapsing like decks of cards; historic churches and mosques destroyed beyond repair; refugees crammed into infested camps, crying out for water and food; corpses thrown into mass graves; captives blindfolded and stripped naked, paraded like cattle through desolate streets.
Such images make all our normal activities—chatting with friends, going out for a meal, joining a family gathering, going to a concert—seem insipid, hollow, and pointless. Once we bear witness to these horrific crimes, we feel a heavy moral responsibility has fallen on our shoulders, a burden we can’t shake off by claiming these atrocities don’t concern us. The burden is painful, but also exhilarating in reminding us of our capacity for empathy.
A third factor that heightens the moral gravity of the Gaza crisis derives from the fact that it is the state of Israel, the self-declared national home of the Jewish people, that is inflicting all this suffering, anguish, and death on Gaza. Yes, we do hold Israel to a higher moral bar than we do most other nations, but not from anti-Jewish bias. We do so because the Jews are the ethnic group that experienced the horror of the Holocaust and would should therefore be the most vigilant defenders of the inviolable right of people to be free from ethnic persecution.
The vow “Never again,” as understood by Jews of conscience, means never again for anyone. Yet, instead of showing empathy, Israel is now using the past trauma of the Holocaust—and the guilt of the countries that inflicted that trauma—as a shield to silence criticism and maintain its impunity. It’s as if they are saying to the world, “You can’t touch us because you bear the guilt for our past suffering.”
Since we, as Americans, are citizens of the nation foremost in shielding Israel from accountability, this places on us the moral burden of opposing our country’s policies.
The fourth way in which the crisis in Gaza bears moral weight relates specifically to us here in the United States. Our country is complicit in Israel’s crimes. With our own tax dollars, we fund Israel’s military, supplying it with the most advanced weaponry available. We give Israel diplomatic cover at the U.N. through our use of the veto. And we give Israel moral cover by echoing the messages of its propaganda machine at press conferences and international gatherings, while tarring those who criticize its actions.
When all the moral dimensions of the situation in Gaza are viewed together—the sheer volume of indiscriminate killing; the fact that the devastation is starkly visible to us through the media; the fact that the operation is being carried out by the state representing the Jewish people, the historic victims of persecution and genocide; and the complicity of the United States—they point to the fifth reason this is a deeply moral crisis. Taken conjointly, all these factors shatter the moral framework offered to us as the key for understanding our world.
For decades, the major Western powers have presented themselves as the bulwarks of the rules-based international order, the defenders of human rights and decent human morality. Yet now, under the shallowest of pretexts, they throw their weight behind Israel, even when the World Court designates its operations a “plausible genocide.” This unwavering loyalty to a nation that flouts international law overturns the moral lens through which we’ve been taught to view the global order. Now the masks come off, exposing the hypocrisy of the major Western powers hidden behind their polished exteriors.
The crisis in Gaza shows those nations that should be defending international law and humanitarian values to be openly betraying their commitments. Their moral bankruptcy couldn’t be more glaring. They advise Israel to carry out its operations in accordance with international law, but continue to provide it with weapons even when it breaks those laws. They say they favor peace, but at the U.N. Security Council they veto or abstain from resolutions calling for a humanitarian cease-fire. They say they are opposed to genocide, but dispute South Africa’s case at the World Court. They say that Israel should treat prisoners humanely, but turn a blind eye when it tortures, humiliates, and even executes them.
Since we, as Americans, are citizens of the nation foremost in shielding Israel from accountability, this places on us the moral burden of opposing our country’s policies. Given this responsibility, how can we keep silent? There is simply no excuse for standing speechless on the sidelines. We can’t let silence reign as the final word. We can’t let silence replace the word. Since the U.S. government represents us, as Americans we must boldly speak up and oppose its support for Israel’s operations.
The plain fact is that the key to a solution lies in the hands of the U.S. Only if the U.S. applies tough economic and political pressure on Israel can the conflict be justly resolved. And crucially, a just resolution would also serve Israel’s long-term interest, finally permitting it to live at peace with a free Palestinian state, for the mutual benefit of both nations.
Every voice counts, and we can do our share in a variety of ways: by joining marches, writing to the White House and our representatives in Congress, posting relevant news articles and commentary on our social media platforms, writing articles, and talking with friends. It’s not enough to post bromides on social media about love and peace or to pin doves and hearts to our profiles. To fulfill our duty as moral beings, we need to actively express our solidarity with the besieged Palestinians who can’t speak for themselves. And that means, for a starter, calling for a complete cease-fire. Not just for “peace,” but for a real, complete, monitored cease-fire.
But a cease-fire is only the first step. Beyond stopping the present round of destruction, we should also demand a genuine, sincere, concerted attempt to finally fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a fully sovereign state of their own, which will also be the precious key to Israel’s security. The road to a solution of this long-standing problem will be rocky and hard, but we need to join voices and hands with the many others calling for the first steps to be taken—and to be taken now.
(Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a Buddhist scholar and translator of Buddhist texts. He is also the founder and chair of Buddhist Global Relief, a charity dedicated to helping communities around the world afflicted by chronic hunger and malnutrition.)
Features
New mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – I
The Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill was passed by the Parliament on Thursday, June 11, 2026. Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, introduced the Bill, and explained its provisions and value for Sri Lanka and global developments in the use of mediation. Encouragingly, it was passed unanimously.
Sri Lanka’s commitment to provide legislative support for the use of mediation is timely and most welcome. Given that the backlog of cases pending before courts is over a staggering 1.1 million, it is clear that Sri Lanka is yet another country that remains challenged to find responses to make dispute resolution more efficient. The impact of laws delays is serious and damaging not only to the disputants personally, but also for businesses and the economic development of the country. The delays in concluding cases impacts the economy adversely, both directly and indirectly, but are often seen only as an access to Justice concern. This is unfortunate. In many jurisdictions across the globe, alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), such as mediation, have been introduced to alleviate laws delays. While Sri Lanka enacted legislation (1988) to provide for mediation in respect of minor community disputes of a low monetary threshold, the enactment of the new law heralds a commitment to provide for the recognition of a disciplined regime for its use for higher value civil and commercial disputes.
The new law provides for the recognition of mediation as a dispute resolution option that can be voluntarily selected by parties, and for a governance regime to ensure that mediations are conducted in compliance with certain standards which are globally accepted. It provides statutory recognition to the principle that a mediated settlement agreement that has been signed by the disputants, is valid in law. It does not provide for any management control by government or establish entities. In addition to the voluntary reference by parties, a court can also refer a dispute in an action before it, to mediation, at its discretion, after considering all circumstances and if considered appropriate. The voluntary nature of the process is not affected because, while the court can refer the dispute to mediation and the parties must then engage in the mediation, there is no compulsion for the parties to settle against their will.
The law sets out the obligations of Mediators, disputants and the Service Provider. Certain categories of disputes cannot be referred to mediation. These are disputes the settlement of which requires the inclusion of terms that can be given effect to, only on a decree of court, such as the termination of a marriage or a declaration of nullity of marriage or the adoption of a child or the partition of land to obtain rights in rem. A schedule sets out eleven (11) categories of actions that cannot be settled by mediation. However, matters relevant to such disputes may be mediated for the purpose of submitting terms of settlement to court for consideration of incorporation in a judgement, decree or order in compliance with applicable law.
The new law also provides that in a mediation, certain key principles of the process must be complied with. These include the confidentiality and the without prejudice rule in respect of matters discussed at the mediation; the rule that Mediators must be neutral and impartial; the party centric nature of the process that provides primacy to the wishes of the disputants including that it is they that determine the outcome and that a settlement is reached only if all disputants agree to the terms; the noncoercive role of the mediator whose duty is to facilitate and manage the process using mediation specific skills and techniques, but is debarred from imposing a decision. Although a settlement agreement is valid in law, provision is included to obtain a decree of court, based on the terms of the settlement. A mediated settlement agreement can be set aside on an application made to court, on specific limited grounds which are provided for, including that it is offensive to the public policy of the country. If the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, a certificate of non-settlement is issued. The provisions of the law are based on international best practices and principles articulated in the 1988 UN Mediation Convention (the Singapore Convention) and the UNCITRAL model law.
The popularity of mediation has grown for its value in being time efficient, cost effective and party centric. Parties have control over the outcome and have the space to discuss their concerns, fears and interests and need never agree to settle unless fully satisfied that settlement terms address their interests. Disputants are free to walk out of a mediation process at any time, if dissatisfied with the progress. The discussions are confidential and a valuable feature is that the process offers an opportunity to reduce acrimony which is prevalent in most disputes, and to restore fractured relationships which is very important in family and business related disputes. This benefit and the prospects for governments to reduce the cost of the administration of justice, by using mediation, is articulated in the preamble to the 2018 UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) which states that the use of mediation results in significant benefits.
Pursuant to the interest generated within the country regarding the value of using Mediation for commercial dispute resolution, and heralding what we like to see as the initial steps of a Mediation boom in the country, several positive advancements have taken place –
* Parties have opted to include mediation in the dispute resolution clause in contracts;
* Given that mediating disputes requires very specialised techniques and skills, many professionals, including predominantly Lawyers, have engaged in training programmes offered by international training bodies that offer accreditation;
* Trained Mediators are engaged in an effort to form themselves as a professional Organisation;
* Mediation Advocacy training programmes have been held to train Lawyers on their niche role in the mediation process. That role is distinctly different to that of a court Lawyer who’s obligations are centred on an adversarial approach where the dispute is adjudicated in terms of the law alone. Hence lawyers need training to be useful within a non-adversarial process which is party centric and has a focus on reaching a settlement, based on the interests of disputants.
* Sri Lanka enacted the Recognition and Enforcement of International Mediated Settlement Agreements Act No. 5 of 2024 (the UN Mediation Convention Act) and ratified the Convention becoming the 14th country to do so. Sri Lanka will be seen as an investor friendly country in respect of dispute resolution where mediation is used, since it offers an enforcement regime which is recognised universally.
* The landmark determination of the Supreme Court (SC SD 22 of 2025) in the challenge by the Bar Association to the constitutionality of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill, found that none of the provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional and gave a judicial sign off to statutory provisions that seek to ensure that mediation services are provided in this country, in a disciplined manner in compliance with universally accepted standards.
* Perhaps, inspired by the statutory obligation imposed on judges to attempt pretrial settlement of disputes, in terms of the Small Claims Court Act and the Small Claims Court Procedure Act (both of 2022) and the Civil Procedure Code provisions on Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Orders, 125 District Judges were recently trained (with support from the ADB) in Mediation. The training provided a dual benefit – it provided training in skills that are required to settle disputes and equally importantly, provided a comprehensive understanding of how mediation will function when judges themselves refer disputes for settlement by private mediators.
* Trained Mediators are already conducting mediations with success.
* A not-for-profit guarantee company, the International ADR Centre – www.iadrc.lk ) was established in 2018 as a joint venture of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law & Practice (ICLP) to promote ADR and is actively engaged in promoting mediation through training, disseminating information and creating awareness among stakeholders, including the business sector. In addition to the International ADR Centre, “Udecide” is a project that promotes training of mediators and other activities that enrich the mediation culture.
* Commercial Mediation has been included in the Masters level programme at the Colombo University;
* The Sri Lanka Law College offers a component on Mediation in the Post Attorney Diploma programme, which commenced recently.
The private sector was actively engaged in the drafting of the Mediation Bill under the leadership of the International ADR Centre, which held many stakeholder consultations to obtain feedback from those that were conversant with the subject. The Centre had previously assisted the government to draft the UN Mediation Convention Act (Act No. 5 of 2024).
Several international Organisations that previously provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration, have provided for institutional rules to provide mediation services. These include WIPO and the ICC. Specifically, in relation to Investor State dispute resolution (ISDR), the International Bar Association (IBA) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2012 and ICSID (of the World Bank group) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2022. UNCITRAL, which is currently working on reforming ISDR, promotes mediation, observing that the use of mediation could reduce the costs of ISDS and also preserve relationships between the investor and the State. UNCITRAL has formulated provisions on and Guidelines for, Mediation for investor state dispute resolution.
(To be continued)
by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney-at-Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Centre.
Features
A Testament to the Sri Lankan family
The passing of Dr. Devanesan Nesiah a few days ago brought back memories that spanned more than four decades. Devanesan signed the witness register at my marriage in 2002. It was a year of hope. The Ceasefire Agreement between the government and the LTTE had brought a respite from a war that had devastated the country for nearly two decades. The possibility of peace seemed real. It was fitting that Devanesan should be present on that occasion because his entire life was dedicated to building bridges across divides and seeking rational and humane solutions to conflict. He was a friend, mentor, and guide whose life embodied values that Sri Lanka, indeed the world, needs today.
In reflecting on Dr. Nesiah’s life, we need to be reminded that the forces that unite us as a people in Sri Lanka are stronger than those that divide us, and that the bonds of human affection can transcend even the deepest divisions of ethnicity, history and politics. I first met him in 1984. I had just had my very first newspaper article published in the Jaffna-based Saturday Review. The editor was Gamini Navaratne, a Sinhalese. This was a reminder that even during the darkest period of ethnic conflict, the bonds between communities remained strong. The article I had written was based on my encounters with the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983.
At that time, Dr Nesiah was the Government Agent of Jaffna. Tens of thousands of Tamil people who had fled violence in the south had been transported to the north by a government that had failed to protect them. He came up to me at an event, introduced himself, and told me that he liked what I had written. He also said that he would soon be leaving for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and that we could meet there. Over the next three years, Devanesan and his wife Anita adopted me into their family. I used to visit them two or three times a week, not only to be given meals by Anita but to discuss matters with Devanesan. These included the academic papers and newspaper articles that were written. Later, Anita earned her PhD in religion and served on the boards of many civic organisations, including the National Peace Council.
Practical Solution
In 1992, we had both returned to work in Sri Lanka when Devanesan invited me to accompany him to Jaffna to celebrate the eightieth birthday of his father, K Nesiah, the distinguished educationist affectionately known as Professor Nesiah. The older Nesiah had been a leading member of the Jaffna Youth Congress. This remarkable movement championed complete independence from British rule, national unity, and the eradication of social inequalities based on caste and communal identity.
At a time when many feared that independence would lead to majoritarian domination, the leaders of the Youth Congress chose instead to place their faith in a shared Sri Lankan future. They believed that people from different communities could build a common nation while preserving their distinctive identities. So did Devanesan. This vision remains relevant today. It needs to be actualized.
The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is not that diversity exists. Diversity exists in every society. The tragedy is that we often allow diversity to become a source of fear, though we share many of the same values of family, hospitality, respect for elders and compassion towards others. During our visit to Jaffna in 1992, we met representatives of the LTTE administration, including Raheem. The discussion turned to the controversial issue of merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Dr Nesiah argued that if the merger could not be achieved due to political opposition, it might be more rational to seek greater powers for provincial councils instead. Raheem disagreed. Devanesan was interested in finding practical ways to achieve justice and coexistence. That was characteristic of him.
Devanesan Nesiah was a student of conflict and strategy. He became a doctoral student of Professor Thomas Schelling, who would later receive the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on conflict and cooperation. Schelling’s insight was that even in the midst of conflict, there are usually common interests that adversaries share. Even adversaries locked in a struggle usually depend on each other for the outcome they each want. The challenge is to identify those common interests and build upon them. Conflict is not simply a contest between enemies. It is also a search for ways to coexist. Together as students and peace practitioners, we applied those theories to the Sri Lankan context to understand what was going on and to share that understanding with the Sri Lankan people.
Rational Empathy
Dr Nesiah spoke his mind, truth to power. He was a man of logic, rationality, and principle. His integrity came at a cost. His public service career experienced many ups and downs because he refused to accommodate irrational or corrupt demands. There were periods when he was sidelined into that administrative limbo known as the “pool” and assigned no substantive responsibilities for refusing to give in to political demands. Like the rest of his larger family, most notably the Hoole family of Jaffna, he would not abandon his principles. In 2018, to protest the action of President Maithripala Sirisena in sacking the then government he returned his Deshamanya Award (Pride of the Nation) national civil honourn which was soon thereafter overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. His commitment was not to personal advancement, but to what he believed was right.
My wife Sumadhu recalls a story he told her. One day, while travelling on official duty, he told her how he had seen a thalagoya, a monitor lizard, trussed up and being taken away for slaughter. The sight of the creature’s suffering affected him deeply. He said he saw tears in its eyes and described the moment of awakening. From that day onwards, he gave up eating meat.
The story brings to mind the biblical story of the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus and the Buddhist exhortation, “May all living beings be well and happy.” But the deeper significance lies not in religious comparison. It lies in the awakening of empathy.
That was the essence of Dr Devanesan Nesiah’s worldview. The prejudices that society often imposes through ethnicity, religion, caste, or gender had little hold on him. He saw them as human constructs that often served to privilege some while excluding others. Such were his values that made him an extraordinary human being. Dr. Nesiah lived according to that understanding. He showed that integrity can survive amidst conflict. He reminded us that reason and compassion are not opposites but partners, that what unites us as Sri Lankans inhabiting our common island home has always been greater than what divides us, and we need to build our institutions accordingly.
I am proud that he was my friend. I am grateful that he was my mentor.
by Jehan Perera
Features
City of Dreams …Heartbeat of Colombo
If Colombo’s nightlife had a pulse, you’d find it 23 floors up, at Gatz, City of Dreams, Cinnamon Life.
The entertainment lounge has shed its old skin and stepped out supper-club style — think dim lights, clinking glasses, and live music that doesn’t ask you to choose between dinner and a show. You get both.
What’s more, at the new look Gatz the music never stops and it’s all happening seven nights a week … with live entertainment, and this is the scene, beat by beat:
Monday and Tuesday: Top Hats with Daniella/Naomi, from 7.00 pm onwards.

Sohan, Kamal Munasinghe (GM, Cinnamon Life) and Imran of
Funtime Entertainments
One of Colombo’s most sought-after bands is now a Monday-Tuesday ritual.
With a super repertoire, Top Hats can swing from lounge jazz to dancefloor fire. Big venues love them. Now Gatz gets to claim them.
Wednesday: Enroute with Gananath & Debbie – from 7.00 pm onwards.
Want New York at sunset? This is it. Gananath & Debbie transport you straight to the heady days of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Ray Charles …old-school cool, live and unfiltered.
Thursday to Sunday: Terry & the Big Spenders – from 8.00 pm onwards.

Terry & The Big Spenders
The crowd favourite. A super big band sound that owns the 70s, 80s and 90s.
If you’ve been waiting for horns, harmonies, and nostalgia with volume, Terry & the Big Spenders deliver it nightly. No wonder they’re a huge hit.
Gatz is now an entertainment lounge, in Supper Club style, with Happy Hour very day, from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm because the night, they say, should start with a toast.
And, from July, weekends at the Gatz go global. Local and foreign guest stars will be around to entertain you. Gatz is certainly booking big.
Wow! That would be another exciting experience for those patronising the most talked about venue in town.
In charge of the new setup is our legendary entertainer/singer Sohan Weerasinghe, along with Imran of Funtime Entertainment.
The twosome, with invaluable assistance from the General Manager, Kamal Munasinghe, and the entire team at Cinnamon Life, have built Gatz into more than a venue. They have turned it into the “Heartbeat of the City.”
So come for happy hour. Stay for Terry’s horns, Sing-along with Enroute and Dance with Top Hats, all on the 23rd floor, and while Colombo sparkles below the bands will take you higher.
Remember, the heartbeat is loudest at Gatz.

Top Hats
-
News5 days agoCIABOC summons Yoshitha over his participation in British Navy training programme
-
News7 days agoLocal firms move millions of dollars overseas for phantom imports: Govt.
-
Midweek Review7 days agoJuly 09: An inexcusable overall security failure and exceptional contingency plan
-
Sports2 days agoTharanga set for high-profile javelin clash in Ostrava
-
News5 days agoJustice Minister responds to social media claims he represented Easter Sunday ringleader
-
News4 days agoCommonwealth lawyers urge Lanka to uphold rule of law
-
Features3 days agoPolitics of protected species
-
News7 days agoAI raises concerns over arrest of Sallay and rapper under PTA
