How Covert Alliances, Military Strategy, and Global Politics Reshaped a Nation
๐ฐ ๐ท๐ธ๐ณ๐ณ๐ด๐ฝ ๐ฐ๐ป๐ป๐ธ๐ฐ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ด ๐๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ป๐ด๐ณ
Newly declassified documentsโbrought to public attention by Eitay Mackโhave exposed a deeply controversial and largely hidden relationship between Israel and Sri Lanka during the early years of Sri Lankaโs civil war.
Officially, diplomatic ties between the two countries had been reduced due to political sensitivities. However, behind the scenes, Sri Lanka actively sought Israelโs help to strengthen its military capabilities against Tamil militant groups.
This was not a simple arms deal. It was aย multi-layered strategic partnershipย involving:
โข Weapons transfers
โข Intelligence cooperation
โข Military training
โข Political and diplomatic alignment
Under President J. R. Jayewardene, Sri Lanka began reshaping its war strategy with external support that would have long-lasting consequences.
๐ถ๐ด๐พ๐ฟ๐พ๐ป๐ธ๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ๐ณ (1948โ1984)
The relationship between Sri Lanka and Israel dates back to 1948, when Sri Lanka became one of the first Asian countries to recognize Israel.
However, during the 1950s to 1970s:
โข Sri Lanka aligned itself with the Non-Aligned Movement
โข It maintained closer ties with Arab nations
โข Direct relations with Israel became politically sensitive
By the early 1980s, the situation changed dramatically. Sri Lanka was facing an intensifying internal conflict, and the government sought international assistance to combat the growing Tamil insurgency.
The โInterest Sectionโ Approach
Instead of opening a formal embassy:
โข Israel operated through an โInterest Sectionโ within the United States Embassy in Colombo
โข This allowed both countries to maintainย covert cooperation without public exposure
This arrangement provided a discreet channel for military and intelligence collaboration.
๐ผ๐พ๐๐๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ฝ๐ณ ๐ฒ๐พ๐ ๐ด๐๐ ๐พ๐ฟ๐ด๐๐ฐ๐๐ธ๐พ๐ฝ๐
A key player in this relationship was Mossad.
Disguised Presence
To avoid political backlash:
โข Israeli personnel entered Sri Lanka under the cover of โagricultural advisersโ
โข They were officially linked to irrigation and development projects
Military and Intelligence Training
Their actual role included:
โข Training elite Sri Lankan units in counter-insurgency
โข Building intelligence networks
โข Introducing surveillance and interrogation techniques
The Special Task Force (STF)
The Sri Lankan Special Task Force became a highly trained paramilitary unit:
โข Modeled on Israeli internal security forces
โข Designed for operations in civilian-populated areas
โข Known for its aggressive counter-insurgency tactics
This marked a turning point, where Sri Lankaโs military shifted from conventional warfare to more specialized and targeted operations.
๐ผ๐ธ๐ป๐ธ๐๐ฐ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐พ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ฝ๐ณ ๐๐ด๐ฒ๐ท๐ฝ๐พ๐ป๐พ๐ถ๐
Israel supplied more thanย $30 million worth of military equipment, significantly strengthening Sri Lankaโs armed forces.
Air Power
โข The Israeli-builtย Kfir fighter jetsย became a central part of the Sri Lankan Air Force
โข These aircraft enabled precision airstrikes deep into conflict zones
One of the most controversial incidents linked to air power was the 2006 attack on the Sencholai childrenโs home, where dozens of schoolgirls were killed. This event remains widely debated and criticized.
Naval Capabilities
โข Shaldag and Dvora-class fast patrol boats were supplied
โข These vessels played a key role in targeting the LTTEโs naval wing, known as the Sea Tigers
By controlling the sea, the Sri Lankan military was able to:
โข Cut off supply routes
โข Limit external support to insurgents
Ground and Surveillance Systems
โข Mini-Uzi submachine guns
โข Electronic fencing systems
โข Advanced communication and surveillance technology
These tools allowed for tighter control over both combat zones and civilian populations.
๐ฟ๐พ๐ป๐ธ๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ฝ๐ณ ๐๐๐๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ถ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐ธ๐ฝ๐ต๐ป๐๐ด๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ด
The relationship extended beyond the battlefield into political and economic domains.
Allegations of Political Support
Some declassified materials suggest that:
โข Israeli intelligence may have supported President Jayewardene politically
โข Financial assistance was allegedly provided to ensure his continued leadership
While these claims remain debated, they highlight the depth of the relationship.
The Mahaweli Development Programme
This large-scale irrigation and hydroelectric project had multiple purposes:
โข Economic development
โข Agricultural expansion
โข Strategic population settlement
It is argued that:
โข The project helped relocate Sinhalese populations into Tamil-majority areas
โข This created buffer zones and strengthened state control
๐๐ท๐ด โ๐๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ธ๐๐ท๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ธ๐๐ฝ๐ด๐๐๐ด๐โ
One of the most controversial aspects of the conflict was the restriction of information.
Mediaย and NGOย Restrictions
โข Journalists were denied access to conflict zones
โข International organizations faced limitations
This reduced independent reporting on civilian casualties.
No-Fire Zones
Civilian Safe Zones
The government designated certain areas as safe zones for civilians. However:
โข These areas were reportedly affected by shelling
โข Authorities argued that militants were using civilians as human shields
This remains one of the most debated aspects of the war.
๐๐ท๐ด โ๐๐๐ธ ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฝ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฝ ๐ผ๐พ๐ณ๐ด๐ปโย AND GLOBAL PARALLELS
Some analysts argue that the final phase of the Sri Lankan Civil War created a model for modern counter-insurgency warfare.
Key elements include:
โข Strict information control
โข Concentration of civilian populations
โข Heavy military force in confined areas
โข Post-war demographic changes
Comparisons have been drawn to other global conflicts, including those involving Israel in Gaza. These comparisons are debated and should be understood within a broader analytical context.
๐ณ๐ธ๐ฟ๐ป๐พ๐ผ๐ฐ๐๐ธ๐ฒย AND THE โWAR ON TERRORโ
A major shift in strategy was the reframing of the conflict.
Instead of presenting it as an ethnic conflict, Sri Lanka described it as:
A fight against terrorism
This framing had significant effects:
โข Gained international support or neutrality
โข Reduced pressure from global institutions
โข Justified strong military actions
Even when concerns were raised by the United States regarding human rights, the broader global focus on counter-terrorism limited intervention.
HOW HISTORY CONTRIBUTED TOย ๐ผ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐พ๐ป๐ด๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ด
The events of the civil war were shaped by decades of historical developments:
Long-Termย ย Discrimination
โข Language policies excluded Tamil speakers
โข Education and employment opportunities were restricted
Militarization
โข Expansion of the armed forces
โข Increased reliance on foreign training and weapons
Dehumanization
Over time, the conflict narrative portrayed Tamils as a security threat rather than a minority group with political grievances.
Lack of Accountability
โข Emergency laws granted extensive powers to the military
โข Oversight mechanisms were weak
International Context
Global priorities often focused on stability and counter-terrorism, rather than human rights enforcement.
THEย ๐ถ๐ด๐ฝ๐พ๐ฒ๐ธ๐ณ๐ด ๐ณ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฐ๐๐ด
Whether the events constitute genocide remains a subject of ongoing debate.
Arguments Supporting the Claim
โข Patterns of large-scale civilian casualties
โข Allegations of targeted attacks on civilian areas
โข Long-term demographic changes
Arguments Against the Claim
โข The government maintains it was conducting a counter-terrorism operation
โข Civilian casualties are described as unintended consequences of war
โข No formal international ruling has classified the events as genocide
๐ฒ๐พ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐๐ธ๐พ๐ฝ
The relationship between Israel and Sri Lanka during the civil war reveals a complex and often hidden dimension of modern conflict.
It demonstrates how:
โข International alliances can shape domestic wars
โข Military technology and training can shift the balance of power
โข Political narratives can influence global perception
Ultimately, this is not just a story about two countries. It is a broader example of howย geopolitics, strategy, and secrecy intersect to shape the course of history.
Written byย ย ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ญ๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง
Tamil National Historian | Analyst of Global Politics, Economics, Intelligence & Military Affairs
10/04/2026
The views expressed in this article are the authorโs own and do not necessarily reflect Amizhthuโs editorial stance.