Saturday, February 3, 2018

British Monarchy Must Apologize On 70th Year Of Independence For Colonizing Sri Lanka

By Pitasanna Shanmugathas and Chamindra Weerawardhana –February 3, 2018

“A nation which colonizes, a civilization which justifies colonisation, and therefore force, is already a sick civilization, a civilization that is morally diseased, that irresistibly, progressing from one consequence to another, one repudiation to another, calls for its Hitler, I mean its punishment.”
~ Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism, 1955

In Sri Lanka, unlike the Portuguese and Dutch who were, respectively, the first and second Western colonial occupiers, the British succeeded in conquering the entire island, and for the longest period than any other power, from 1796 to 1948. Unlike India, Sri Lanka gained Dominion Status within the Commonwealth [which is largely interpreted as ‘independence’] in a relatively peaceful manner. However, this peaceful transition, in many ways, soon turned out to be the calm before the storm. It is not only the successive Sinhalese nationalist governments who are to be blamed for the ethnic conflict. Most significantly, the British were largely responsible for sowing the seeds of lasting ethno-national contention.

The necessity of an Apology

The politics of reparations for past atrocities form a priority area in managing relations between oppressors and the oppressed. Colonisation is a phenomenon based on a logic of exploitation, of looting, of claiming other people’s lands, bodies, waterways and natural resources as one’s own. To reiterate a universal truth, there is nothing positive or constructive in any form of coercive colonisation, or, for that matter, on-going neo-colonial domination.

In the sphere of global governance, what Stephanie Wolf describes as a ‘redress and reparation movement’ is fast becoming an essential element of national as well as international policy formulation. Reparation politics are on the forefront of discussions on large-scale atrocities in the West, such as the Holocaust. In the territory of Turtle Island that we know as Canada, a much-needed discourse on reparations, apologies and redress is taking shape, albeit at a relatively slow pace. The Indigenous communities of these territories faced [and in many aspects, continue to face] high levels of violence, torture, murder, deprivation and systemic discrimination. Apologies, compensation and reparations for atrocities such as the system of ‘Indian Residential Schools’, to give but one example, are very much an ongoing process.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of Sri Lanka securing Dominion Status within the Commonwealth. Ceylon was the first Crown Colony outside the ‘Old Commonwealth’ [white settler-colonial places such as Canada, Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand] to obtain Dominion Status. The paradoxes and contradictions inherent in the socio-political life of post-1948 Sri Lanka are such that we refer to the day on which we were given Dominion Status [with the British monarch continuing to be our head of state] as our ‘Independence Day’. In terms of national sovereignty, it would be more justifiable to consider the 22nd of May, the day on which the Constitution of the First Republic was promulgated in 1972, as Sri Lanka’s ‘Independence Day’, if not ‘National Day’. The 1972 Constitution marked the most poignant expression of ethnic outbidding that came to being as the primary consequence of the British-induced constitution-making and institution-building experiment in Sri Lanka. It was a truly majoritarian constitution that shamelessly shunned minority rights. Not even the namesake minority safeguard in the Soulbury Constitution, namely its Section 29, was spared. In this sense, 22 May 1972 marks the ultimate entrenchment of ‘divide and rule’ tactics on our colonised soil and mindsets. Having that day as National Day would give us more food for thought annually, on the importance of national unity, reconciliation and building solidarities across the diverse mosaic that is the Sri Lankan people.

Most importantly, discussions on ‘independence’, ‘national sovereignty’, and ‘self-government’ in Sri Lanka are totally devoid of any focus whatsoever on the adverse effects of colonialism. We seldom collectively reflect upon the fact that the impact of colonial rule is continuously felt to the present-day and beyond. The consequences of three centuries of Western colonisation, especially the 150 years of British colonisation, are very much of ‘contemporary’ relevance. Colonial mindsets, colonial hangovers, colonially induced stereotypes wield an extremely powerful influence in all aspects of public life as well as in the personal spheres of many of our fellow citizens.

In this article, we contend that the British government and the British monarchy must apologize for its colonisation of Sri Lanka, for their decisive role in raising ethnic tensions that eventually led to a long civil war, and continuing politics of ethno-national antagonism. The apology should be made, preferably, by the British monarch or by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister or the monarch, in their apology to the people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, must explicitly mention the role that they played as colonisers in provoking ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka.

Most notably, Britain must apologize for its disregard towards minority leaders of Sri Lanka, whose repeated pleas for adequate minority safeguards were largely ignored in British constitutional experiments.

If the British, in their apology, take responsibility for their role in aggravating ethnic tensions, it can provide a much-needed starting point towards inter-ethnic reconciliation in Sri Lanka. It will be helpful in publicly coming to terms with the fact that Britain’s colonial policies were significantly responsible for setting up the institutions which paved the way for ethnic outbidding in the post-independence era. By way of reparations, Britain could, for example, provide funding directed towards building new homes for Sri Lankans at the lower echelons of the social ladder [especially of ethnic minority communities] displaced by the thirty-year war, while providing assistance to the Government of Sri Lanka in restoring infrastructure in the war affected North and East. However, the reality is that no financial payment is sufficient as reparations for the misery and bloodshed caused by the persistent effects of Britain’s colonial policies in Sri Lanka.

The fact that colonisation in any shape or form is deeply problematic, that it is a process of control and repression, does not require any reiteration here. As we shall highlight below, the evolution of constitutionalism and governance in Sri Lanka is directly intertwined with the oppressive legacy of British colonisation. We cannot talk about constitution-making, law making, or even the ‘mace’ in the Parliament of Sri Lanka without referring to Britain and British rule of the island. Over the years, Sri Lankans as a people have somewhat failed to adequately take stock of the destructive legacy of colonisation, and what it did to the socio-political fabric of the land. Instead, Sri Lankans of all ethnicities and faith traditions, especially those of the socioeconomic and political elite, have been perpetuating colonial structures of oppression that the British introduced, in some cases overtly and in many others covertly, in the guise of conforming to practices of democratic governance.

In the section that follows, we shall engage in a very brief discussion of some aspects of the constitutional and political decision-making-related errors made by the British in the early decades of the last century, which have had a lasting adverse impact on ethno-national politics in Sri Lanka. This discussion is by no means extensive, nor does it encompass a fully comprehensive discussion of constitutionalism, which would be beyond the remit of this article. This article also does not touch upon the multitude of socio-economic, culturally genocidal and highly exploitative aspects of colonisation that imperatively call for an apology. Instead, the objective here is to provide an überblick of the deeply problematic nature of Eurocentric constitutional experimentation on a non-Western socio-political and cultural context. This salient reality alone warrants an abject and unambiguous apology from the colonising power.

Constitutional blunders: a continuing quagmire

After the Cameron-Colebrook reforms of 1833, the British transferred political power to Sri Lanka [then Ceylon] in two main stages: in 1931 via the Donoughmore Commission, and in 1948 via the Soulbury Commission. These two stages of Western constitutional reform were central to setting up the framework for ethno-nationally motivated discrimination against minority communities by successive Sinhala-Buddhist-dominated governments.

A system of ‘communal representation’ was in place from 1915 to 1931, with a certain number of seats assigned to English-speaking elite Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Burghers, etc. In 1931, Donoughmore reforms abolished communal representation. This strengthened the hands of the political class of the majority Sinhalese community. The Donoughmore Commission created Executive Committees, where the local population had a considerable role in administration (except in reserved prerogatives such as finance and defence). It extended the franchise and allowed elections based on universal suffrage. Upon abolishing communal representation in executive councils, the Donoughmore Commission turned out to be a failure with respect to the fact that it did not suggest any alternative such as a workable form of federalism to contain communalism and ensure adequate political representation of the minority communities.

To recapitulate a well-known fact, prior to 1931, the Tamil minority were overrepresented in the civil service commensurate to population statistics. Under British rule, Professor Neil DeVotta reports that “the Tamil population held 33% of civil service jobs, 40% of judicial service jobs and 31% of university students, figures that are much higher than their representative share.” The post-Donoughmore constitutional landscape was conducive to what came to be known as ‘Sinhalisation’, which involved more opportunities in the state sector to Sinhalese people. Under British rule, the Tamil minority had a significant economic advantage over the Sinhalese majority, significantly due to educational opportunities in the northern part of the country, where the first Christian mission schools – a core element of physical, social, linguistic, cultural and psychological colonisation – were established. Tamils who had undergone missionary education had more access to “clientelistic networks” set up by the British than the average Sinhalese person. The abolition of communal representation by the British marked the beginning of a gradual process that would significantly threaten to reverse the economic and societal privilege held by Tamils.

Lanka at 70: Political circus interrupts the country’s constitutional odyssey

Rajan Philips-February 3, 2018, 7:11 pm

As the country marks the seventieth anniversary of independence, its principal political leaders are out-clowning one another and turning the whole political system into a circus of clowns. There is no other charitable way to describe what the President, the Prime Minister and the former President are doing in a desperate three-way shootout – to either produce the best scorecard or avoid the worst scorecard for their respective parties and alliances in the local government elections next Saturday. The scorecard that will be used for political bragging and the commentaries that will go with it will have two lines: the national tally of votes and the number of local bodies won, with special mention for trophy municipalities – Colombo being the big one.

Lanka at 70 Political circus interrupts the country’s constitutional odyssey.docx by Thavam on Scribd

TNA to avoid Independence Day Celebrations

2018-02-03

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) yesterday said its members would not participate in the Independence Day National Celebration due to local government election campaign activities in the Trincomalee District.

Opposition Leader and TNA MP R. Sampanthan has officially informed this to the Independence Day Celebrations Committee.

TNA sources said MP Sampanthan would participate in the LG election public meetings and rallies in Trincomalee in February 4.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that some candidates of several Tamil political parties have decided to hoist black flags in the North and North East areas to express the displeasure stating that although the country had gained freedom 70 years ago, the Tamil communities had not yet tasted true freedom. (Thilanka Kanakarathna)

Sri Lanka: Self-rule enriched politicians

What have we done with the Independence granted to us 70-years ago? Has stewardship over our own affairs ensured the social and economic development that should have been possible in a seven decade long period?

by Manik de Silva- Feb 4, 2018

( February 4, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) We celebrate today the 70th anniversary of our country’s Independence from the British with mixed feelings. There are those who believe that having a son of a British Queen, whose ancestors imposed the colonial yoke on this country by military means and exploited its many riches, as chief guest at this landmark event is not the best way to commemorate Independence. They recall that 2018 also marks the 200th anniversary of the Uva rebellion led by Keppetipola, branded a traitor by the British and proclaimed a national hero by the incumbent president of this country not so long ago. The scorched earth policy unleashed by the British in retaliation for the rebellion has kept the Moneragala district among the poorest in Sri Lanka to the present day. There are other viewpoints including the fact that the colonial legacy, including the English language in which this commentary is written, universal franchise and the parliamentary system as well as the modernization of our country and economy during the colonial period were positives of British rule. Negatives too abounded. These are too well known to require enumeration here.

What have we done with the Independence granted to us 70-years ago? Has stewardship over our own affairs ensured the social and economic development that should have been possible in a seven decade long period? Undoubtedly many formidable challenges including the over fourfold growth of our small population in 1948 had to be overcome. But as frequently pointed out countries such as Singapore, with far less natural and human resources than us at Independence, have forged ahead in the intervening years. We were once considered a model colony in the British Empire. But many Asian countries including war-wracked Japan and South Korea have done much more than us in giving their people the material well being and prosperity that ours lack. Undoubtedly the post-Independence period has seen the enriching of our political class. Self-rule and elected office has enriched the rulers in a manner that defies description. But it is we and no other who with our votes installed them in power.

It is during self-rule that a near 30-year civil war that held back our forward movement exploded. The Republican Constitution of 1972, replacing the previous Soulbury Constitution with its entrenched clause for protecting the minorities no doubt helped create the conditions that contributed to the disaffection of a considerable section of the Tamil community. This was preceded by the so-called Sinhala Only Act which its author, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike attempted but was not permitted to moderate, all contributed to create the conditions that led to the civil war that cost the Lankan people so much in terms of lives and treasure. Undoubtedly both internal and external factors prolonged a conflict unleashed by a formidable separatist-terrorist group was finally defeated in May 2009. But both the promised fence-mending and reconciliation between communities is far from accomplished in the long years that have passed since the war ended. The messages from our leaders issued in connection with today’s event and the formal celebration itself focusing on communal harmony and reconciliation pay lip service to these objectives. But whether the political will exists to accomplish them remain an open question. Contending forces jostling for power are sadly ever-willing to exploit chauvinist (they see them as nationalist) sentiment in their quest for office.

We boast that Independence was accomplished without a drop of blood being shed. Events in India no doubt helped us to achieve self-rule as early as we did. Our first post-Independence government led by Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake, had much to its credit. Even before Independence when we had limited self-rule, he had begun the process of setting up the various colonization schemes to restore the dry zone of this country to its past glory as a granary of the East. But we have not yet achieved sustainable self-sufficiency in rice, evidenced by the needs for imports during adverse weather, though considerable progress had been made. But let us not forget Senanayake also disenfranchised the Indian Tamil plantation workers who had contributed much to this country’s development for electoral reasons.

Certainly the caliber of politicians in the early post-Independence years was far superior to those that came later. The old left provided moral and intellectual capital to the legislature although it was never able to capture power on its own. But it certainly contributed to winning the welfare measures that the country’s poor continue to benefit from although there are those who think that but for a strong left movement in the early post-Independence period, we might have attracted western investment that might have helped us to go on the road that Singapore took. But this, of course, would have been at the expense of distributive justice that welfare ensured. In sum, Independence and the resulting elections ensured, especially post-1977, galloping corruption and consequent enrichment of the political class.

In a thoughtful letter we publish in this issue, Ranjini Obeyesekere, a respected academic and intellectual who graduated from Peradeniya and has taught in universities both here and the U.S. has written about the unrepentant violence that key players in the current political scene have indulged in the post-Independence years, noting that there have been no apologies from anyone in that regard. As we shrug off the inconveniences of recent traffic snarls triggered by Independence parade rehearsals and await the television pictures from Galle Face next Saturday (all the world loves a parade!) let us also reflect on what our politicians have and have not done for us when the British passed the baton to the native ruling class.

( The writer is the chief editor of the Sunday Island, a Colombo based weekly newspaper, where this piece first published)

Country will never return to dictatorship - Mangala

Gandara Group Jayasiri Peduruarachchi-Saturday, February 3, 2018

The country which was rescued from dictatorship by electing the Common Candidate will never be turned back, Finance and Mass Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera pointed out yesterday.

He also pointed out that the country which was isolated in the international arena, regained its due recognition after the victory of the Common Candidate.

Minister Samaraweera made these observations at a rally held at Weligama, supporting UNP Local Government election candidates.

“The previous leaders attempted to push the country into dictatorship. However, we were able to prevent this, in credit of the people’s right to vote. The international community made war crimes allegations against us.

Our fishermen were denied access to the European fish market as part of sanctions imposed on us,” Minister Samaraweera said.

Minister Samaraweera also pointed out that the present government was able turn the tide in favour of the country in a very short period of time.

“We were successful in getting the EU ban on fish exports lifted after Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe personally attended to the matter and discussed with the relevant parties.” he said.

He also pointed out that fish exports to Europe from Sri Lanka has increased by 40% within the last few years.

“We regained the GSP+ facility in the previous year. Last year Sri Lanka recorded a massive increase in exports. The country also received the highest Foreign Direct Investments last year and this figure is expected to increase this year,” the Minister said.

Minister Samaraweera also pointed out that the present government took over a country which was in a debt trap in 2015.

“Following Independence in 1948, this is the first time that we are facilitating the largest amount of debt which amounts to Rs.1.7 trillion,” he pointed out.

“We will overcome all these challenges. We have well drawn up plans to take up these challenges. This election does not change any positions such as the President, Prime Minister or Ministers.

It also does not change the ruling party.

This election is to choose honest and qualified people to bring prosperity to villages and towns,” the Minister said.

President rules out truck with Rajapaksa-faction

President-February 3, 2018, 8:05 pm

ECONOMYNEXT -President Maithripala Sirisena has backtracked on his rhetoric to ditch his senior coalition partner, the United National Party (UNP), and ruled out any rapprochement with the Rajapaksa-faction of his own party.

Addressing a political rally in his home constituency of Polonnaruwa, Sirisena said he knew that Rajapaksa loyalists within the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) will not join him to form a government.

Sirisena shocked the UNP last week when he said he was prepared to form an SLFP administration by ditching Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who propelled Sirisena to power at the January 2015 presidential election.

"Although I said I will form a government if all 96 SLFP MP’s stand by my side, I know they (the Rajapaksa-faction) cannot come near me because they do not accept my policies," Sirisena said.

The Rajapaksa-faction has not officially quit the SLFP, but they have formed the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), or People’s Front, headed by former minister G. L. Peiris as a proxy.

President Sirisena described Peiris’s SLPP as the Sri Lanka Plague Party. "It is a party created to protect rogues. It is a party to protect the corrupt and save those who have robbed the country."

He said he was inviting "clean politicians" to join him to rebuild the country and move forward.

The tone of his latest speech is in sharp contrast to his gung-ho statements to go it alone after the February 10 local elections.

Ten days ago, he had dropped a bombshell on Wickremesinghe saying he will be taking over economic management responsibilities which had been with the UNP administration for the past three years.

Since making that statement, he has not made any moves to actually take control over the national budget or economic policy.

There has been no reaction from Wickremesinghe or the UNP to Sirisena’s recent cavalier statements.

He also suffered a major setback however, when his attempt to extend his term of office by one more year to 2021 was shot down by the Supreme Court earlier this month.

Worried Speaker issues a warning to Maithri and Ranil

BY GAGANI WEERAKOON-2018-02-04

With President Maithripala Sirisena continuing to openly criticize the acts of his main coalition partner United National Party (UNP) - which many believe as an act designed to save his face and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) in the run-up to the Local Government Elections - Speaker Karu Jayasuriya who met the former at his official residence at the Paget Road, Colombo 7 has requested the President to mind his tongue as his utterance could bring serious blows to the economy in the long run.

Jayasuriya in his diplomatic way has pointed it to the President that more he engage in attacking his government ally more damage he brings it upon himself.

"Several parties, especially the business community, the investors and foreign delegates have voiced their concerns about the verbal battle between the UNP and the President. This is not good for the country. Risk of losing faith in the Government will increase amongst the foreign investors and the international community, as long as two sides engage in attacking each other," Speaker Jayasuriya has pointed out.

political hostility

He has told President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that political hostility would be detrimental to achieve the Good Governance objectives of the Government.
"Hon. President, Hon. Prime Minister, I am making a request. There is no politics here. As the Speaker, I am independent. I notice the orators from both parties relentlessly expressing their views on political platforms. We have a plan of work to be achieved. We have to fulfil the objectives of late Ven. Maduluwave Sobhitha Thera. The economy has become unstable due to certain political speeches. There is fear in the minds of investors. The Stock Exchange can collapse. Investors think the country will turn unstable after the election. The international community that got close to us recently is facing a problem over this. Such problems will not be good for the country. I am humbly making a request for both of you to limit your hostility on the political stage. It is the need of the moment," the Speaker said.

According to sources, both leaders have agreed to enter into a truce by cordially agreeing to the Speaker.

However, President Sirisena was quoted as saying that the one-day Parliamentary debate on the Bond Commission's report and the PRECIFAC report scheduled for 6 February, is simply a 'gimmick' instead of a fruitful one.

In an interview with media personnel at his official residence, the President has said this was a debate which should have taken place days ago and continued for days without a disruption.He also said the United National Party (UNP) should take the responsibility of failure to take action against the Rajapaksas over the charges levelled against them.

"When ministerial portfolios were allocated in the Unity Government, the portfolios which have an impact on taking legal action against wrongdoers were given to UNP Ministers. Therefore, the ministers who are in charge of the Law and Order, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Attorney General's Department should take the responsibility," he said.

propaganda activities

"I'm the one who told to hold the debate prior to 10 February. My request grew into a public opinion. Therefore, they had to take this up for a debate before the 10th. However, I'm not certain to which extent this debate will be successful. It is impossible to debate the contents of two reports within a mere few hours. On the other hand, I don't believe at least 90 per cent of MPs will show up for the debate. The debate should have been held earlier. Election propaganda activities will come to an end on 7 February. All ministers and MPs will be engaged in propaganda activities in their respective wards on 6 and 7 February. From that number, how many will turn up for the debate? Even if they turned up, how many will engage in the debate productively? For how long will one person speak?

This is not a debate which can be done in 5 to 10 minutes. This is more complicated than that. The debate had been arranged in a hurried manner as a mere show to the country only because I made a challenge. The complete responsibility of not taking legal action against the Rajapaksas, should be taken by the Ministers who are having the Police, the CID, the AG's Department under their purview.

I have told this before as well. Then, one may ask whether the same thing will happen to these Commissions. It won't be, because I'm the one who appointed Presidential Commissions. All the other things happened from 2015 were done by the respective ministries. The Anti-Corruption Secretariat office was at Temple Trees," he noted.

In response to this, Speaker's office in what appeared like a clarification to the President's statement said the proposed 6 February debate on the Bond Commission and PRECIFAC reports could be extended to 7 February as well.

Speaker Jayasuriya said that the debate wouldn't be restricted to 6 February.

The Speaker emphasized that party leaders decided on 30 January to have the debate on 6 February after the National Election Commission (NEC) pointed out the impracticability of having the debate on 8 February as suggested by PM Wickremesinghe as the day falls within the 'silent period'.

Another Commission

A presidential commission to inquire into allegations of large scale frauds and malpractices in SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering Ltd and Mihin Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd, during the period of 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2018 has been appointed.

President Maithripala Sirisena signed the Gazette Notification appointing this Presidential Commission.

Retired Supreme Court Judge Anil Gunaratne, Court of Appeal Judge Gamini Rohan Amarasekara, Retired High Court Judge Piyasena Ranasinghe, Retired Deputy Auditor General Mallawa Arachchige Don Anthony Harold, the Director General of the Sri Lanka Accounting and Auditing Standards Monitoring Board Mrs. Wasantha Jayaseeli Kapugama have been appointed as the members of the Commission.

Accordingly, the new Commission will look into the following irregularities in the relevant companies.

1. Monetary allocations, loans, shares, investments and other finances from the Treasury, Central Bank, People's Bank, Bank of Ceylon or any other financial institution,

2. The establishment, operation and cessation of Mihin Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd,

3. The reasons for the termination of the agreement entered between the SriLankan Airlines and Emirates Airlines, which is the international Airlines Company of the UAE and its complex results,

4. Entering, extending and termination of agreements to purchase of aircraft and other assets, selling, leasing, selling and re- renting, conveyance, exchange, releasing and disposal,

5. Purchase, hire, lease, charter, sale, and transfer of aircraft or any assets valued more than Rs 50 million,

6. Consigning and appointing of sub agents, brokers and consultants, companies, individuals or entity to supply goods, services or any other function,

7. Opening, maintenance and suspension of networks and offices in other countries,

8. Interactions between SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering and Mihin Lanka,

9. Human Resource Management including selection, appointment, remuneration, promotions, transfers, employee restructuring and retirement of the Board of Directors, CEOs, Chairman and other senior management.

10.Financial reporting, compliance with relevant accounting and auditing standards, and financial and operational performance and standards,

Rajitha predicts Gota's arrest

The Colombo High Court on Friday (2) turned down a request made by former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and seven others that they be released from a corruption case filed by the Bribery Commission over the Avant-Garde incident.

Former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and seven others had filed a revision petition in the Colombo High Court challenging Colombo Chief Magistrate's decision to refuse preliminary objections raised by them regarding the Avant-Garde corruption case.

The Bribery Commission had filed a corruption case against former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and seven others for allegedly causing a Rs.11.4 billion unlawful loss to the Government when permitting Avant-Garde Maritime Services to operate a floating armoury.

High Court Judge Sampath Wijeratne decided to dismiss the revision petition in limine citing that the Director General of Bribery Commission is vested with power to file cases in the Magistrate's Court in accordance with the Bribery Commission Act. The Bribery Commission alleged that the accused had given permission to Avant-Garde Maritime Services to operate a floating armoury.

The decision comes in the wake of Minister Rajitha Senaratne who is known to be one of the close confidantes of President Sirisena addressing a public rally on Wednesday (31) stating that all arrangements have been made to arrest Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Surveys on LG Polls

Results of several surveys conducted by various independent groups and political parties on the forthcoming LG Elections are now being circulated amongst the public.

While all these surveys points at the overall victory of the UNP, many have suggested a very poor performance by the Maithri-faction of the SLFP suggesting that both UNP and SLFP will have to work together in local governing bodies as well.

According to intelligence reports, UNP under the leadership of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is expected to win over 225 councils out of 341 while, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna led by MP Mahinda Rajapaksa is predicted to bag over 40 councils. The Tamil and Muslim parties will win the majority of North and East LG bodies which is estimated to be over 50.

Reports also suggest that Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna will not be able to win a single council while the SLFP will only be able to take charge of less than 7 councils.

The intelligence reports also suggest that of the postal votes cast by the tri-forces, the majority is for the SLPP while the majorly of police votes have gone to the UNP.

Rajapaksas won't be treated differently if guilty of wrong-doing: PM

2018-02-02

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe yesterday stressed that everyone including the Rajapaksas will be dealt with in the same way if they are found guilty of any wrong-doing.

The Prime Minister said this while speaking at an UNP election rally in Ampara last evening.“The policy of the UNP is to not take sides but to take action against wrong-doers without considering whether they are Rajapaksas or anyone else if they are found guilty of a crime,” he said.

“We will catch all who have robbed public finances. This government was elected for that particular purpose. The wrong-doers will be dealt with legally. We have filed legal action against several members of the Rajapaksa family. We will also carry out investigations against UNPers who are accused of wrong-doing without favour,” the Prime Minister added.

He assured that no one who has committed fraud will be spared just to make the party look good. “Everyone should be considered equal under the law,” he said.

Minister of Primary Industries Daya Gamage said a programme to grant title deeds to lands for the landless in Ampara will be implemented soon. He pointed out that the government had been successful in providing electricity to every village in the Ampara District and assured that the housing problems faced by the people in the district will also be resolved soon. (Yohan Perera)

‘One Rank One Pension’ For Armed Forces Of Sri Lanka

By Arun Kumaresan –February 3, 2018

A Note To The President & PM

Armed Forces of Sri Lanka is a vital and holistic institution that had come in aid to the nation in order to uphold its sovereignty and integrity when the writ of the democratically elected governments was challenged. Unlike other public service entities armed forces has two significant variations in their contract of employment;

70 to 80% of the population of the armed forces personal is retired on completion of 20-22 yrs of service due to steep narrowing of opportunities to higher ranks. This retirement process at younger ages enables the armed forces to maintain young and physically agile fighting forces to meet any contingencies. (They do not have the luxury of full pay until 55yrs)
A unique clause that duty bounds all armed forces personnel that detail them to execute their tasks even at the cost of their lives.

What is OROP?

It implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

This enables bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. In armed forces, equality in service has two components, namely, rank and length of service.

The importance of rank is inherent in armed forces as it has been granted by the President (for officers) and Service Chiefs (for members from ranks) and signifies the command, control and responsibility in consonance with ethos of service. These ranks are even allowed to be retained by the individual concerned after his/her retirement.

Hence, no one will object for this deduction based on above; two armed personnel in the same rank and equal length of service on retirement should get same pension irrespective of date of retirement and any future enhancement in rates of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

It needs no one to be a ‘rocket scientist’ to understand the above rationale but only requires the understanding and commitment of the government. Whilst conceding the financial implication this scheme will entail to the exchequer; the following time line is recommended for the progressive implementation:

Award to the armed forces personnel ‘Killed in Action’. (as an immediate measure)
Award to all ranks.
Finally, when resources of this third world nation permits consider granting to the officer corps.

It is hoped that politicians, bureaucrats and civil society will unequivocally support this endeavor. Our neighbor India has already done it to its Armed Forces; we only have now to “copy and paste”.

Marikkar slams Govt. for failing to penalise corrupt politicians

Insists sufficient time till 17 Feb 2020 to introduce new anti-corruption laws
Claims systems have failed to address issues behind corrupt politicians
Says if they can implement new regulations and reforms, this Parliament will make history
Affirms no UNPers accused by PRECIFAC, urge other parties to ‘walk the talk on corruption’
UNP wants party to be protected, not social standing of members

By Charumini de Silva-Saturday, 3 February 2018

In a hard-hitting evaluation of the PRECIFAC recommendations, MP S. M. Marikkar yesterday criticised policymakers for failing to formulate a legal framework to penalise corrupt politicians, insisting that there is a necessity to revolutionise the prevailing political culture to clean up Sri Lanka’s future.

“The current Parliament has a great responsibility to formulate and pass new regulations to punish the corrupt politicians in the system. We need to put an end to fraudulent people entering the political arena of this country,” he said at a special press briefing held at the UNP Headquarters yesterday.

Insisting that three years have passed without punishing politicians with allegations against them, Marikkar said it was the one expectation the general public had from this Government, which he said it has failed to deliver.

“Sri Lanka has always been a developing nation from our grandparents’ generation, but now it is high time we change this country by inculcating a good political culture to elevate it to an advanced economy at least for our children,” he said.

Pointing out that no one can dissolve the Parliament till 17 February 2020, Marikkar said there is sufficient time to bring in new laws to punish the wrongdoers.

He claimed judicial and political systems have failed to address the issues behind corrupt politicians, calling it was high time to punish those found on the wrong side of the law regardless of their positions or social standing.

“It is a decisive time to turn things around and make this country prosperous without any corrupt, dishonest politicians in the system. If we can implement new regulations and reforms, this Parliament will make history in changing the corrupt political culture of Sri Lanka. People will always remember it as a patriotic Parliament.”

Marikkar went on to say that, according to the 34 recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) to investigate and inquire into Serious Acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power, State Resources and Privileges (PRECIFAC), Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Basil Rajapaksa, MP Wimal Weerawansa, Priyankara Jayaratne, Jayantha Samaraweera, Piyasiri Wijenayake, Mohamed Muzammil, Renuka Perera, Danasiri Amaratunga, Janaka Ranawaka and Rohitha Bogollagama were some of the accused politicians in the report, who are still without charge.

He also stressed that there was not a single UNP member accused in the PRECIFAC and urged other parties to “walk the talk on corruption.”

“If you are against corruption and a deceitful political culture, remove these unsuitable candidates contesting for the upcoming local government elections and lead by example. If they harp about anti-corruption culture at political rallies, then we have to wonder if they are talking with their rear-ends,” he quipped.

Marikkar charged that the party leaders who nominated corrupt candidates should be held responsible.

“I think the party leaders must expel the accused people and set an example. We need a political culture beyond sensational political rally statements, one that will actually benefit people if this country.”

When asked about UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake who was accused in the PCoI Bond Commission’s report, he said that the party has decided not to let Karunanayake get involved in any work until the guilty becomes innocent.

“The committee appointed by the Prime Minister has recommended UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake should not exercise any duties in his capacity as Assistant Leader until the investigation on bond irregularities by the authorities is over. We have given examples. We don’t care for the social standing of people; what is important to us is our party. We can replace people, but we cannot replace the party,” he said.

Noting that the UNP is the single biggest political party in the country that represents all ethnicities and areas of the country, Marikkar said the party was nobody’s property to claim.

“Late President R. Premadasa led by example, from his humble beginnings in the party until he became the President of this country. We only want people who are passionate about the party,” he added.

Emerging Colombo Port City

By Lakshman I. Keerthisinghe-2018-02-03

"Sri Lanka should implement the already signed agreements of the Port City Project and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the investors." Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin
Media reported that, Megapolis and Western Development Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka said that President Maithripala Sirisena will declare the 269 hectares of reclaimed land at Port City as a territory of Sri Lanka in March, after the necessary legal framework is passed in Parliament. After declaring Port City a landmass constitutionally and legally belonging to Sri Lanka, it will be handed over to the National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) and in turn the NHDA will lease a part of the Port City, to develop it as a Financial City, to China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. (CHECL) on a 99-year lease. The Minister added that CHECL will launch a project in June to construct three high rises that contain 60 floors each at a cost of US$ 1 billion (Rs. 150 billion).

The special legal and administrative package that would govern financial, administrative, tax, rents and lease arrangements is being drafted by the Attorney General's Department, with the help of the Prime Minister's Office, and the draft legislation will be presented to Parliament in April. As such, the Port City will not come under the purview of the Colombo Municipal Council. Another US$ 800 million is to be invested by CHECL to develop infrastructure at the Port City that will include a huge theme park for public use, an underground tunnel from Galle Face to Kollupitiya bordering the sea along the Marine Drive to ease traffic congestion on Galle Road, a light rail system from the Port City up to Katunayake are a part of the infrastructure development programme.

Organic soil made out of solid waste of Colombo will be used for land filling at the Port City and Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) Feasibility Studies and tests for gavel, soil and pebble have also been done to ensure the strength of the ground and structures of Port City.

The Port City was a concept of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was apparently inspired while inspecting the landfill being constructed for the Colombo South Port. The modern Port City was in fact an unsolicited proposal submitted by China Harbour Engineering Company based on previous proposals. The construction was set to begin in March 2011 but due to several circumstances the project was stopped. In mid 2012, the Sri Lankan Port Authority, (SLPA) announced that the construction of the then Colombo Port City project would commence on 17 September 2014. The Port City was suspended after the fall of the Rajapaksa regime due to issues related to sovereignty of Sri Lanka and adverse environmental impacts. The project was replaced with the signing of a new agreement for the Colombo International Financial Centre and several other major changes including stricter environmental restrictions were agreed on. Construction of the Colombo Port City Project was launched on 17 September 2014 by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The Port City has been criticized for several reasons. Many environmentalists claim that the Port City contains many environmental hazards and the adverse environmental impacts the project will cause would be far more than the economic benefits it may have to offer. Maritime sector experts also pointed out the dangers Sri Lanka may face due to giving outright ownership of land to China, especially in a high-security zone and concerns about its effects on Sri Lanka's sovereignty has also been expressed. The project was also criticized for its lack of transparency and irregularities such as the involvement of SLPA, which is implementing the reclamation project, had no mandate to do so as its mandate is to deal with Ports and Shipping.

According to the agreement signed, by the previous Government, in September 2014 a land of 20 hectares will be granted to the C.H.E.C. Port City (Pvt.) Ltd on free hold basis and the remaining land is granted on 99-year lease basis. According to the consultations of the new Government, no land will be granted on free hold basis, and all the lands will be on 99-year lease basis. If the Government does not require these 20 hectares, the company may obtain the land for another 99 years.

In conclusion, an agreement has been reached with the Chinese Government that this land is being used to build a Financial City to fill the vacuum between Singapore and Dubai. This will enable offshore operations. For this purpose, the Government will propose new legislation for governing offshore activities similar to Dubai. The Financial City incorporated in the emerging Port City will be beneficial as it would make a major income earner and an employment provider for our motherland Sri Lanka.

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law with LLB, LLM, MPhil.(Colombo) keerthisinghel@yahoo.co.uk

When 9-year-old Muhammad Abu Haddaf died in hospital in the early hours of 6 December 2017, his mother Nisrin could not be at his bedside as she was nine-months pregnant.

Muhammad’s father, her husband Saleh, was too afraid to tell her the news. But when she found out from relatives later that morning, “I couldn’t control myself,” Nisrin said. “I cried and screamed for my son.”

“I lost my son Muhammad. It was decided by God,” Nisrin said. “Then I praised God and prayed for God to have mercy on him and forgive him.”

Muhammad died of injuries he sustained during Israel’s 2014 assault on the Gaza Strip.

This week, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem published a detailed account of what happened to Muhammad’s family during the attack and in the years after.

Two missiles

When Israel’s assault began, Saleh and Nisrin took their five children and moved from their home in al-Qarara village to Saleh’s sister’s home in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.

On 8 August 2014, when a ceasefire was supposed to be in effect, the parents and children went back to al-Qarara to pick up some belongings from the ruins of their home that had been bombed by Israeli forces.

While they were there, the Israelis fired two missiles that “were presumably targeted at three members of the larger Abu Haddaf family, who were standing at their own doorstep nearby and were not taking part in the fighting,” B’Tselem states.

These missiles killed three people, including two children. According to Defense for Children International-Palestine, the two children were Mahmoud Muhammad Saleh Abu Haddaf, 8, and Mahmoud Khalid Musa Abu Haddaf, 15, and their adult relative was Suleiman Samir Abu Haddaf.

Saleh and Nisrin and four of their children were injured and taken to hospital in Khan Younis.

Muhammad, 6 at the time, was wounded in the abdomen and spine. Doctors at the European Hospital in Rafah – near Gaza’s border with Egypt – had to resuscitate him and he suffered lack of oxygen to his brain. During his 15-day stay in the hospital, they also found his legs were paralyzed.

Muhammad was taken to Turkey for treatment, where he was joined by his then 5-year-old brother Ayash, who was also partially paralyzed.

During their months in Turkey, the boys were separated from their parents. “I can’t describe how terrible I felt. I was wounded and so were my sons,” Nisrin said. “On top of that, Muhammad was far away and I didn’t know exactly how he was doing.”

“My sons needed me, but I was physically and emotionally exhausted,” Nisrin said.

Living in “wrecked house”

Months later, the family returned to their home in al-Qarara, which Saleh managed to partially rebuild, and Muhammad was hospitalized again in Gaza in December 2014. The following year he underwent stomach and throat surgery at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem.

But his condition continued to deteriorate; after he returned home, he lost his eyesight and ability to speak. He required intense care costing hundreds of dollars a week that the family could not afford.

“I worked on and off and spent everything I earned on Muhammad,” Saleh said. “My father, my sister and my brothers gave me money, but they’re all clerks and they don’t have a lot to give.”

And through it all, in the cold of winter and heat of summer, “we lived in a wrecked house, without real walls, windows or doors,” Saleh added.

In October last year, the family moved into a new home built with the help of relatives and UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees.

Muhammad was readmitted to the European Hospital in November 2017 but after two unsuccessful surgeries for abdominal swelling he died there the following month.

“Muhammad’s condition remained serious the whole time, until we lost him on Wednesday at two in the morning,” Nisrin said following his death.

Attacking civilians

“Bombing and shelling densely populated areas was one of the most horrifying aspects of Israel’s conduct in what Israel called Operation Protective Edge,” B’Tselem states. “This policy led to the killing of at least 1,055 Palestinians – almost half of those killed in the operation – of which 405 were children and 229 were women.”

B’Tselem dismisses as “entirely unfounded” Israel’s claim that its bombing of civilian areas in this manner was lawful.

Israel’s assault destroyed or badly damaged 18,000 houses, leaving more than 100,000 Palestinians homeless. According to UN figures cited by B’Tselem, almost 30,000 remained homeless three years after the attack.

And from the more than 11,000 persons wounded, most “had to make do with the deficient medical services available in Gaza and to pay for many of the treatments themselves, without compensation from Israel for the damage it caused.”

In Muhammad’s case, B’Tselem says, “his family and doctors fought for his life, as he was transferred from one hospital to the next – in Gaza, Turkey and Israel – paralyzed, blind and unable to speak.”

Muhammad’s life and death is just one story of the horrific and lasting impact of this systematic and massive Israeli violence for which there has yet to be any accountability or justice.

How Israel Won a War but Paid a High Moral Price

A decade of targeted assassinations has pushed the boundaries of Israel's laws and military ethics — and harmed its image across the globe.

A Palestinian boy holds a bunch of plast

BY RONEN BERGMAN-FEBRUARY 3, 2018

On May 18, 2001, a Hamas operative wearing a long dark blue coat came to the security checkpoint outside the HaSharon Mall, near the northern Israeli city of Netanya. He aroused the suspicion of the guards, who stopped him from entering, and then blew himself up, killing five bystanders. On June 1, another suicide bomber killed 21 people, most of them young Jewish immigrants from Russia, standing in line outside a discotheque on a beach in Tel Aviv. The owner of the dance hall, Shlomo Cohen, had served as a naval commando, “but this was the worst thing I had seen in my life,” he said, with despair in his eyes.

By early November, suicide bombers were striking in the streets of Israel almost every week and sometimes every few days. On Dec. 1, three bombers in succession killed 11 people in Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall. The next day, a man from Nablus blew himself up on a bus in Haifa, killing 15 and wounding 40.

The offensive did not stop. In March 2002 alone, 138 men, women, and children were killed by suicide bombers, and 683 were wounded.

The most atrocious of the attacks occurred on Passover, on the ground floor of the Park Hotel in Netanya, where a Seder banquet was being held for 250 of the city’s poor. A suicide bomber disguised as a religious Jewish woman entered the hall and blew himself up, killing 30 people — the youngest aged 20 and the oldest 90 — and wounding 143 others. George Jacobovitz, a Hungarian-born Nazi death camp survivor, was among the dead.

2002 was, according to Avi Dichter, the head of the domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet at the time, “the worst year for terror attacks against us since the establishment of the state.”
The Israeli intelligence community had come across suicide bombers before, but it had no solution for it. “What can you do against a suicide bomber when he’s already walking around in your streets looking for somewhere to blow himself up?” said Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael, the head of the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure.

Terrorism in general, and suicide attacks in particular, created a strange and frustrating situation within the Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). They generally knew who was behind an attack but could not get to him deep inside Palestinian-controlled territory. “There was a sense of impotence,” said Giora Eiland, the head of the IDF’s Planning Directorate at the time.

Dichter, the Shin Bet director, had already presented a new strategy to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during a series of meetings toward the end of 2001. At first, the ministers were hesitant. But at a meeting after the Haifa bus terrorist attack, Sharon whispered to Dichter, “Go for it. Kill them all.”
Since picking off individual bombers was ineffectual, Dichter decided to shift focus. Starting at the end of 2001, Israel would target the “ticking infrastructure” behind the attacks. The person who blew himself up or planted the bomb or pulled the trigger was, after all, usually just the last link in a long chain. There were recruiters, couriers, and weapons procurers, as well as people who maintained safe houses and smuggled money. They would all be targets.

Above: Israeli emergency workers search through the bombed out interior of the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel, on March 27, 2002, during Passover. (Scott Nelson/Getty Images); Top: A Palestinian boy holds plastic flowers as he plays on the rubble of assassinated former Hamas interior minister Said Siam's apartment building during a Hamas rally in Jabalia on Jan. 20, 2009. (Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images)

The Israeli security forces did not hold back. Targeted killing operations killed 84 people in 2001, 101 in 2002, and 135 in 2003. Unlike sporadic killings abroad by Mossad, Israel’s chief intelligence agency, it wasn’t possible — or plausible — for the country to deny that it was behind the assassinations.

Criticism of the targeted killings inside and outside Israel also made it necessary to justify each one, disclosing details of the victims’ misdeeds to establish that it had sufficient cause to respond. Gradually, what had once been considered highly damaging — acknowledging responsibility for an assassination — became official policy.

The IDF began putting out statements after each hit. Simultaneously, the Shin Bet, which had previously been reluctant to talk to the media, distributed excerpts of the relevant “red page” — summaries of material about a dead terrorist’s actions — to various news outlets. Israel was completely rearranging its communications policy — fighting, in effect, a propaganda war.
Explaining, even highlighting, what had long been state secrets required new language and new euphemisms. The deaths of innocent civilians during an assassination operation became known as nezek agavi — “accidental damage.” The words “assassination” or “elimination” or, perish the thought, “murder” were seen as inappropriate, said a senior official in the prime minister’s office. Finally, they picked the term sikul memukad — Hebrew for “targeted preventive acts.”

Although these euphemisms may have been helpful for public relations, it was not at all clear whether Israel’s new targeted killing campaign was legal. Not surprisingly, some of the families of the assassinated Palestinians and victims of “accidental damage” didn’t believe so. They enlisted the help of human rights associations and experienced Israeli attorneys to petition the Israeli Supreme Court to investigate and prosecute those responsible.

More surprisingly, the previous head of the Shin Bet, Ami Ayalon, whose overhaul of the intelligence and operational systems had allowed the new assassination program to begin, agreed with the dissenters. He argued that the Shin Bet was killing people without first considering relevant political and international events and that they failed to understand when an assassination would quell the flames of conflict and when it would fan them.

On July 31, 2001, an IDF helicopter fired several missiles into the office of Jamal Mansour, a member of the political arm of Hamas and a student leader at Al-Najah University in Nablus, in the West Bank. He was killed, together with one of his helpers and six other Palestinian civilians, including two children. Ayalon called the Shin Bet command and asked a top-level official there if he had gone insane. “Why, this man just two weeks ago came out with a statement saying that he supported a halt to terror attacks and that the peace process should be given a chance!” The official replied that they were not aware of such a statement. “What does that mean, you ‘aren’t aware’?” Ayalon fumed. “All the Palestinian newspapers covered it! The whole world is aware!”

“I call it the banality of evil,” Ayalon later told me, channeling Hannah Arendt. “You get used to killing. Human life becomes something plain, easy to dispose of. You spend a quarter of an hour, 20 minutes, on who to kill. On how to kill him: two, three days. You’re dealing with tactics, not the implications.”

Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, center, looks on as outgoing head of Israel's General Security Services Avi Dichter shakes hands with his replacement Yuval Diskin during a ceremony on May 15, 2005, in Jerusalem. (Moshe Milner/GPO via Getty Images)

Israel had not given full consideration to the moral implications of the new program, but it was fully aware that it needed to provide legal cover for officers and subordinates who might later face prosecution, either in Israel or abroad. As early as December 2000, IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz summoned the chief of the Military Advocate General’s Corps, Menachem Finkelstein, and asked him: “In the current legal situation, is it permitted for Israel to openly kill defined individuals who are involved in terrorism? Is it legal or illegal?” Finkelstein was stunned.

“Do you realize what you are asking me?” he replied. “That the IDF’s advocate general will tell you when you can kill people without a trial?”

On Jan. 18, 2001, a top-secret legal opinion signed by Finkelstein was submitted to the prime minister, the attorney general, the chief of staff and his deputy, and the Shin Bet director. The document opened with this statement: “We have for the first time set out to analyze the question of the legality of the initiated interdiction” — another euphemism — “We have been told by IDF and Shin Bet that such actions are carried out in order to save the lives of Israeli civilians and members of the security forces. This is, therefore, in principle, an activity that leans on the moral basis of the rules concerning self-defense, a case of the Talmudic commandment: ‘He who comes to kill you, rise up early and kill him first.’”

For the first time, a legal instrument had been proposed for endorsing extrajudicial execution.
For Finkelstein, a religious man, it was a difficult moment. He was painfully aware that God prevented King David from building the temple because he had too much blood on his hands. Finkelstein, who is now a district judge, wondered if he would be punished one day. “I submitted the opinion with trembling hands,” he told me. “It was clear that this was not a theoretical matter and that they were going to make use of it.”

The opinion fundamentally recalibrated the legal relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. No longer was the conflict a matter of law enforcement — of police arresting suspects so that they can face trial. The opinion posited a new kind of participant in armed conflict: the “illegal combatant” who takes part in armed operations but is not a soldier in the full sense of the word. The term covered anyone active in a terrorist organization, even if his activity was marginal. As long as he is an active member in the organization, he could be considered a combatant — even when asleep in his bed.
The 9/11 attacks muted public criticism of Israeli counterterrorism practices. The very system internationally condemned only weeks earlier was now touted as a model to be copied. “The attacks on 9/11 gave our own war absolute international legitimacy,” Yuval Diskin, a former Shin Bet chief, said. “We were able to completely untie the ropes that had bound us.”

Before the eruption of the Second Intifada, targeted killings had been primarily the secret business of small compartmentalized teams working for Mossad far from the borders of the country. Any moral reckoning was confined to a handful of operatives and government ministers. Once those operations were developed into a large-scale killing machine, however, thousands of people became complicit. IDF soldiers and airmen, Shin Bet personnel, the people who collected and filtered and analyzed and disseminated intelligence — they were all involved, often in more important ways than those who did the actual killing. And by the summer of 2002, no Israeli could claim ignorance of what was being done in his or her name. It was only a matter of time before the security services went too far and violated the legal constraints Finkelstein had placed on them.

Israeli police officers walk near a body, left, and ultra-Orthodox Jewish volunteers collect victims’ blood and body parts for burial at the scene of one of two Palestinian suicide bombings on Jan. 5, 2003, in Tel Aviv. (David Silverman/Getty Images)

Amir was a network intelligence officer, or NIO — a bright young man assigned to Unit 8200, one of the most prestigious outfits in the IDF. He worked, like all NIOs, at a base protected by reinforced concrete, monitoring information. Soldiers like Amir had to decide, for example, whether the speaker in an intercepted conversation was a storekeeper ordering merchandise or a jihadi delivering coded instructions to prepare a bomb. If he made a mistake, innocent people — Israelis on one side, a hapless shop owner on the other — could die.

Officially, Amir and his colleagues at Unit 8200’s Turban base were responsible for stopping terrorist attacks. Unofficially, they were deciding whom Israel killed.

Often, Unit 8200 also picked out buildings to bomb. The bombings were a way to send a message to the Palestinians but also simply a way for Israel’s leaders and soldiers to express their frustration and anger.

On Jan. 5, 2003, two suicide bombers from Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades slipped into Tel Aviv and made their way toward the old central bus station. At 6:26 p.m., they blew themselves up near downtown, killing 23 people. Many were babies or children. The Palestinian Authority condemned the attack and promised to make every effort to apprehend the men who had planned it. The Israelis were not convinced. After all, the bombers came from an organization affiliated with Fatah, which was under Yasser Arafat’s command.

Following that meeting, less than three hours after the attack, the then IDF chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, decided to bomb Target 7068, the code name for the Fatah branch office in the Gaza Strip city of Khan Yunis. Unlike in the past, this time there would be no warning, and the attack would not come at night.

According to the intelligence available to Unit 8200, the office had no connection to terrorist activities. No activity connected to terrorism took place there, according to Amir, just office work and paying out welfare and salaries. “It was the Gaza Strip equivalent of a labor union local,” Amir said.

Early the next morning, Amir, who assumed the operation would be just another symbolic strike on an empty building, told military intelligence that no one was in the building and that it was safe to start the bombardment. “It’s on hold,” he was told by a representative of the Targets Department. “They’re waiting for the office to open.”

“What? Who are they expecting?” he asked.

“No one. It’s not a particular person; just anyone. Let us know when someone goes inside.”

He thought it was a misunderstanding. The presence of civilians in a building was a reason to stand down, not to strike. According to the IDF’s Code of Ethics, soldiers are required to “prevent unnecessary harm to human life and limb” and to “disavow manifestly illegal orders.” Bombing a building inhabited by people with no combat role — bureaucrats, cleaners, secretaries — flew in the face of that code and Finkelstein’s 2001 legal memo. Targeting civilians, in fact, was an outright war crime.

But there was no misunderstanding. The Targets Department issued a written order so that everyone understood that they were waiting for an “indication” that the building was occupied — in other words, a phone call. Amir’s unit was told not to wait for the speaker to identify himself or for a conversation of any value to take place. Put simply, the intention was simply to kill someone — anyone.

Amir raised the matter with the senior NIO and with the command of Unit 8200. The command said they “understood there was a problem,” and the operation was put on hold. “That satisfied me, and I could go back to my post, which I had closed down, at about 2 a.m., with the sense that the story was behind us.”

However, the next morning, when he sat down to work, he got a call from the Targets Department notifying him that the bombing of the Fatah branch in Khan Yunis was about to begin. Amir objected, but the officer on the other end of the line got angry.

“Why does it seem manifestly illegal to you? They’re all Arabs. They’re all terrorists.”

“In my unit,” Amir told him, “we make a very clear distinction between terrorists and those who were not involved, such as people who routinely used the target building.”

But by then the operation was already in motion. Two armed F-16 fighter jets were circling over the Mediterranean, waiting for the order. A drone was photographing the building from a distance. As soon as Amir told them someone was in the building, two Hellfire missiles would be launched. Amir decided he would refuse to cooperate.

Impatient calls started coming in to 8200 command from the air force and military intelligence. The operational order required the bombardment to be completed by 11:30 a.m., when children would be emptying into a nearby schoolyard. “This is a manifestly illegal order, and I do not intend to obey it,”
Amir told them. “The fact that the commander has declared it to be legal doesn’t make it legal.”

A few minutes later, one of Amir’s soldiers told him that phone calls were being made inside the Fatah building. A man was dealing with wage payments, trying to get money to some employees, despite the hard times in the Palestinian Authority and the ongoing war. A secretary was gossiping about a local gigolo.

That was the go signal. The F-16 could fire. Israel could kill them both. Amir sat in his chair as the on-duty NIO. “A certain serenity came over me,” he recalled. “I felt that there was only one right thing to do. It was clear to me that this operation should not go forward, that it crossed a red line, that it was a manifestly illegal order … and that it was my responsibility, as a soldier and a human being, to refuse to carry it out.”

That evening, the 8200 command sent an urgent message to the head of military intelligence, expressing grave reservations about the operation. It was transmitted to the minister of defense, who ordered the cancellation of the attack.

This was a clear vindication of Amir’s moral stand, but it was too late to silence the storm that the “mutiny in 8200” had unleashed. Unit 8200’s command came under heavy fire from all sides of the defense establishment — even Prime Minister Sharon let it be known that he took a very dim view of what had transpired. The head of the unit, Brig. Gen. Yair Cohen, was summoned to an IDF General Staff meeting devoted entirely to Amir. He should face a court-martial, the officers argued, and go to jail for at least six months. One general went further: “That officer should have been convicted of treason and put in front of a firing squad.”

The military and intelligence establishments were concerned that Amir could be the first of many soldiers to refuse to carry out orders. From the commanders’ perspective, putting down a Palestinian uprising didn’t leave a lot of room for squishy liberal objectors.

Amir’s contention that what amounted to an order to murder civilians was manifestly illegal was rejected out of hand by the military. Professor Asa Kasher, a philosopher and the author of the IDF’s Code of Ethics, was invited by the commander of 8200 to discuss the issue. He believed that Amir’s actions were morally incorrect. “I could not under any circumstances endorse the act of the NIO,” Kasher said. “In the situation that prevailed there, when he was an NIO at a distant base, he lacked the moral authority to determine that the order was manifestly illegal.” Amir was quietly discharged without being indicted, preventing the courts from having an opportunity to determine whether the order to murder civilians had been legal.

The operation in Khan Yunis had clearly violated the guidelines set by the IDF military advocate general — that the target for elimination must be an individual directly linked to terrorism. But that wasn’t the only guideline that was now being breached regularly. There was one that called for an investigation each time innocent civilians were killed along with the target. Another dictated that there should be no killings when there was a “reasonable arrest alternative” — when the terrorist could be detained without endangering the lives of soldiers or civilians. Alon Kastiel, a soldier in the intelligence section of the Duvdevan, or “cherry,” unit (on which the popular Israeli TV series Faudais based), told me: “Everything about my military service changed after the outbreak of the intifada. Before that, we made very great efforts to capture wanted men alive. After the outbreak, this modus operandi ended. It was clear that we were out to kill.”

Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin attends the funeral of senior Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab and his bodyguards at the Great Mosque of Gaza on August 22, 2003, in the Gaza Strip. (Abid Katib/Getty Images)

By the summer of 2002, the Shin Bet and its partners were able to stop more than 80 percent of attacks before they turned deadly. The targeted killings were clearly saving lives. But there was a disturbing trend in the data, too: The number of attempted attacks was increasing. Rather than wearing down Hamas and other terrorist groups, the assassinations were spawning more and more attackers.

On Jan. 14, 2004, a 21-year-old woman from the Gaza Strip tried to enter into Israel at the Erez Crossing. She had to pass through a metal detector, like all Palestinians. There was a high, pinging beep when she went through the detector. “Platin, platin,” she told the border guards, pointing at her leg — a platinum implant. The guards sent her through again and then a third time. The detector kept beeping. A female guard was summoned to frisk her. She then detonated a bomb that killed four examiners and wounded 10 others.

The woman’s name was Reem Saleh Riyashi. She had two children, one 3 years old, the other only 18 months. A day later, Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin called a press conference at the home of one of his followers. He sat in his wheelchair, wrapped in a brown blanket. He was smiling. “For the first time,” he said, “we have used a woman fighter instead of a man. This is a new development in the struggle against the enemy.” The sheikh, who in the past had issued several fatwas (religious edicts) against the use of female suicide bombers, said he had changed his mind. “The holy war obligates all Muslims, men and women. This is proof that the resistance will continue until the enemy is driven out of our homeland.” It was enough for the Israeli government to put Yassin on the target list.

In public appearances, Ariel Sharon also dropped hints that he now saw Yassin as a target. This only led to a tightening of the security around the Hamas leader. He stayed indoors, emerging only to visit a local mosque and his sister’s home, both of which were near his house. He moved between the three points in two vans, one equipped with a lift for Yassin’s wheelchair and a second for his armed bodyguards. His life was confined to this triangle, and he and his underlings assumed that Israel wouldn’t dare strike at any of its vertices — each of which was crowded with women, children, and innocent civilians.

But there were spaces in between those three points. On the evening of March 21, Yassin was driven to prayers at the mosque, with his bodyguards following in their van.

Shaul Mofaz, now defense minister, ordered that both vehicles be destroyed on their way back. There were choppers in the air and drones buzzing overhead, and Yassin’s son, Abdul Hamid, had been around long enough to sense the danger. He raced to the mosque.

“Father, do not leave here,” he warned. “They will not attack a mosque.”

The sheikh and his bodyguards decided to be cautious and remained in the mosque.

Hours went by. After the dawn prayers, Yassin wanted to go home. “Helicopters could not be heard above,” his son said. “Everyone was sure the danger had passed.”

The trackers were still there, of course, and the drones were still watching through thermal imaging cameras. People came out the front door, moving quickly past the parked vans, pushing a wheelchair.
Mofaz requested to speak to the Apache pilot, asking him if he could clearly see the wheelchair and whether he could hit it.

“I see them very clearly,” the pilot said. “I can take them out.”

On the video feed, there was a flash and then a fraction of a second of blank screen. Then parts of the wheelchair flew in all directions, one wheel soaring upward and landing outside the frame, and people lying or crawling on the ground.

Palestinians carry the coffin of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin during his funeral on March 22, 2004 in the Gaza Strip. (Getty Images)

The attack on Yassin eliminated Hamas’s most prominent leader; it also killed his bodyguards and injured his son. Soon after taking out Yassin, Israel killed his successor, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, and two aides by firing a single missile at his Subaru on a crowded street. Within weeks, Egypt had brokered a cease-fire with Hamas. Thanks to its streamlined targeted killing apparatus and the decisive leadership of Ariel Sharon, Israel proved that a murderous and seemingly uncompromising terrorist network could be brought to its knees by eliminating its operational commanders and its leadership.

The use of targeted killings, however, came with heavy costs. The price was paid, first and foremost, by the innocent Palestinians who became the “coincidental damage” of the assassinations. Hundreds of civilians were killed, and thousands, including many children, were wounded and left disabled for life.

As a high-ranking Shin Bet officer told me, “In the past, when it was all secret and of dubious legality, we could carry out very few hits.” The only question was how many could be done without getting exposed. “The minute the IDF advocate general made these actions kosher, legal, and overt, we opened up an assembly line for assassinations,” he added. “So now our consciences are cleaner, but a lot more folks ended up dead.”

With the ability to kill at their fingertips, Israeli leaders frequently opted for force before diplomacy. The targeted killing campaign may have been a tactical victory, but it was a strategic defeat that further marginalized and delegitimized Israel in the eyes of the world.

David was once again behaving like Goliath.

The excerpt was adapted from Ronen Bergman’s new book, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.

Ronen Bergman is the senior correspondent for military and intelligence affairs for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine. (@ronenbergman)