Employment, Ethics, and Expediency: Why Sri Lanka’s Israel Engagement Did Not Begin with the NPP—and Cannot End with It
Staff Reporter
In recent weeks, a predictable but deeply selective outrage has surfaced over the National People’s Power (NPP) government’s engagement with Israel in the foreign employment sector. The immediate trigger was the visit of Deputy Minister Arun Hemachandra, who travelled to Israel on 21 December as head of the Sri Lankan delegation to the Joint Committee on Foreign Employment, a mechanism established to address labour welfare, bilateral cooperation, and community engagement concerning thousands of Sri Lankans currently working there.
The outrage, amplified by a small but vocal group of activists—some operating from London, others embedded in opposition-aligned political networks at home—has attempted to portray this visit as a moral collapse, a betrayal of the Palestinian cause, or even a radical departure in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. None of these claims survive serious scrutiny.
What is most striking is not the criticism itself, but the historical illiteracy and political hypocrisy underpinning it.
A Relationship Older Than the NPP—and Older Than Its Critics Admit
Sri Lanka’s engagement with Israel did not originate with the NPP government, nor with the present economic crisis. It began soon after independence, was suspended due to Cold War and Non-Aligned Movement dynamics, and was later revived—quietly and deliberately—under governments that many of today’s critics either supported or actively served.
The pivotal moment came in 1977, following the electoral victory of the United National Party (UNP). Amid mounting internal security concerns, Sri Lanka reopened channels with Israel. This was not done recklessly or publicly, but through a carefully calibrated diplomatic arrangement: the establishment of an Israeli Interest Section within the United States Embassy in Colombo.
Crucially, this step was taken under the authority of A. C. S. Hameed, then Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka—a senior Muslim political leader. This historical fact alone dismantles the simplistic narrative now being advanced that engagement with Israel is inherently anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian. Sri Lanka’s re-engagement was initiated not by ideological Zionists, but by pragmatic policymakers responding to national security realities.
It is worth recalling that Sri Lanka’s initial diplomatic engagement with Israel on Sri Lankan soil did not begin under the present NPP government. During the tenure of A. C. S. Hameed, a senior Muslim politician and former Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, Israel was permitted to establish an “Interest Section” operating from within the United States Embassy in Colombo. This arrangement, though low-profile and diplomatically discreet, marked the first formal Israeli presence in Sri Lanka after decades of officially suspended relations.
That historical fact is conspicuously absent from today’s loud criticism directed at the NPP government for exploring employment opportunities for Sri Lankan workers in Israel. Many of the critics—some claiming moral, religious, or geopolitical outrage—appear either unaware of, or deliberately silent about, the reality that a Muslim foreign minister was instrumental in initiating Sri Lanka’s quiet re-engagement with Israel.
The irony is difficult to ignore. A relationship that began through diplomatic backchannels under a previous government is now being portrayed as a radical or unprecedented betrayal, simply because the current administration is pursuing transparent, economic-driven labour opportunities at a time of severe domestic hardship. The selective amnesia surrounding A. C. S. Hameed’s role suggests that the outrage is less about principle and more about political convenience.
In short, Sri Lanka’s engagement with Israel is not a sudden invention of the NPP era. It is a continuation—albeit in a more open and economically pragmatic form—of a relationship quietly laid down decades ago by those who now stand on the sidelines feigning shock.
That relationship did not end there. Under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Sri Lanka moved towards full diplomatic normalization, with Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar playing a central role in formalising ties. Even under later administrations—including those led by leaders and ministers who publicly expressed solidarity with Palestine—diplomatic relations with Israel were neither severed nor frozen.
Indeed, under Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, diplomatic engagement with Israel continued, without provoking the level of performative outrage now being directed at the NPP.
The obvious question, therefore, is not why the NPP maintains this relationship—but why some critics are pretending it never existed before.
Foreign Employment Is Not Foreign Policy Theatre
Sri Lanka today is a country under severe economic strain. Foreign employment remains one of its most reliable sources of foreign exchange, household survival, and social stability. Thousands of Sri Lankans—Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim—are currently employed in Israel, particularly in construction, caregiving, and agriculture.
The responsibility of any government, regardless of ideology, is to protect its citizens abroad. Deputy Minister Arun Hemachandra’s visit was not a diplomatic endorsement of Israeli military actions, nor a political alignment with any side of the Middle East conflict. It was a functional, time-bound engagement focused on labour welfare, employment conditions, and direct interaction with the Sri Lankan community already living and working there.
To suggest that such engagement constitutes moral complicity is to demand that Sri Lanka sacrifice the livelihoods of its citizens at the altar of symbolic posturing. No serious state operates in this manner.
It is also worth noting that the visit included community engagement precisely because the Sri Lankan workforce in Israel is not theoretical—it exists, it is vulnerable, and it requires representation.
Palestine and Principle: A False Binary
The NPP government has not abandoned Sri Lanka’s long-standing support for Palestinian rights. Acknowledging Palestinian suffering and engaging in pragmatic bilateral relations are not mutually exclusive positions. In fact, most of the international community—including many Muslim-majority states—operates within this very framework.
Turkey maintains full diplomatic relations with Israel. So do Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and several other Muslim-majority countries. These states have embassies, trade agreements, security coordination, and labour exchanges with Israel—while simultaneously advocating, at varying levels, for Palestinian statehood.
Roughly 30 percent of Israel’s population is Muslim. Moreover, Al-Aqsa Mosque—the third holiest site in Islam—is located in Jerusalem, access to which necessarily involves travel through Israel. The geopolitical reality is complex, layered, and resistant to absolutist slogans.
For Sri Lanka, a small state navigating economic recovery, foreign employment, and diplomatic continuity, the choice is not between Palestine and Israel, but between realism and reckless populism.
The Curious Case of Diaspora Outrage
Perhaps the most conspicuous feature of the current backlash is its source. Much of it emanates from individuals living comfortably abroad—some with no direct responsibility for Sri Lanka’s economy, governance, or labour force—who deploy moral outrage as a substitute for policy thinking.
It is difficult to ignore the irony of London-based commentators, including a self-styled author and former bank clerk, lecturing a crisis-hit country on ethical purity while enjoying the insulation of diaspora life. Their attacks on the NPP government appear less rooted in Palestinian solidarity and more in longstanding hostility to the NPP’s anti-corruption, anti-elite political project.
Notably, many of these voices remained conspicuously silent when previous governments—UNP, SLFP, or coalition administrations—maintained or expanded engagement with Israel. Their sudden discovery of moral indignation coincides neatly with the NPP’s rise to power.
Continuity Is Not Complicity
The NPP inherited a state, not a blank slate. Diplomatic relations, labour markets, and international obligations do not reset with each election. What distinguishes the NPP is not that it maintains Sri Lanka–Israel relations, but that it does so openly, transparently, and with an explicit focus on citizen welfare rather than elite security arrangements.
Unlike the shadowy intelligence cooperation of earlier decades, today’s engagement is centred on protecting migrant workers, regulating recruitment, and ensuring bilateral accountability. That is not moral collapse; it is responsible governance.
Politics Without Amnesia
Sri Lanka can, and should, continue to voice concern over civilian suffering in Palestine. It can, and should, advocate for international law and humanitarian norms. But it cannot pretend that cutting off labour engagement with Israel would advance those goals—nor can it allow historical amnesia to dictate present policy.
The relationship with Israel did not begin with the NPP. It was shaped by UNP governments, formalised under Chandrika Kumaratunga, sustained across administrations, and navigated by ministers of diverse political and religious backgrounds—including Muslim foreign ministers.
To weaponise Arun Hemachandra’s visit, undertaken solely to engage with Sri Lankan workers and bilateral labour mechanisms, is not principled politics. It is opportunism dressed up as morality.
Sri Lanka deserves a foreign policy rooted in facts, continuity, and the protection of its people—not selective outrage, diaspora theatrics, or convenient forgetting of history.
