War criminals holidaying in Sri Lanka

Our country is again under the international spotlight, this time in connection with the presence of a foreign national accused of grave crimes during the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The denunciation filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) against Israeli soldier Jake Burkons places the Government in a difficult but revealing position. It is not merely a question of how Sri Lanka responds to allegations against a visiting individual but it also exposes the country’s long-standing failures to address its own legacy of alleged war crimes.

According to the HRF, Burkons served in a combat engineering unit of the Israeli military and was allegedly involved in unlawful destruction in Khan Younis during operations in late 2025. The organisation has urged Sri Lankan authorities to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute him in line with international legal obligations. It notes that under international humanitarian law, States have a duty to act when credible allegations of serious violations arise, particularly when suspects are present within their jurisdiction.

Yet Sri Lanka’s ability to respond decisively is constrained by its own troubled history. For years, allegations of war crimes and serious human rights violations particularly during the final phase of the  civil war have remained unresolved. 

Despite repeated calls from victims, civil society, and the international community, successive governments have failed to establish credible domestic accountability mechanisms. This persistent inaction led to the creation of an international evidence-gathering mechanism under the UN Human Rights Council, an extraordinary step that underscores the depth of international concern over Sri Lanka’s unwillingness and inability to investigate itself.

When a country has not demonstrated the capacity or political will to pursue accountability domestically, its credibility in handling similar cases, especially those involving foreign nationals, comes into question. The Burkons case is therefore not just a legal test, but a reputational one. It highlights a stark contradiction as to how can Sri Lanka convincingly uphold international justice standards in this instance when it has consistently resisted doing so at home?

Any meaningful action against an individual linked to Israel risks diplomatic repercussions, particularly given the geopolitical sensitivities surrounding the Gaza conflict and the involvement of the United States. In such a context, the temptation to opt for minimal action such as quiet deportation will be strong. However, such an approach would reinforce the perception that accountability is negotiable and contingent on political convenience.

There is also a deeper institutional issue. Sri Lanka’s judicial system, shaped by years of politicisation and reluctance to engage with crimes committed by State actors, is not equipped to handle a case of this nature. Prosecuting alleged war crimes requires not only legal expertise but also independence, witness protection mechanisms, and a commitment to due process that transcends political pressure. These are precisely the areas where Sri Lanka has failed, opening the door to international scrutiny.

Nevertheless, the broader lesson is unavoidable. Accountability demands, whether related to Gaza or Sri Lanka’s own past, are not transient. They do not fade with time or political change. Instead, they tend to intensify, especially when ignored. For Sri Lanka, this moment should serve as a reminder of the need for addressing allegations of violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law during our own bloody conflicts and insurgencies.  

The Sri Lankan State can continue its pattern of avoidance, treating each case in isolation and hoping the pressure subsides. Or it can recognise the interconnected nature of these challenges and take meaningful steps toward building a robust, impartial system of accountability. The latter path is undoubtedly more difficult, but it is also the only one that offers a sustainable way forward for victims, for justice, and for the country’s own future.