Some want Israel to use Lanka-style brutality against Hamas – ignoring the strategy's true costs

As Israel's war on Hamas grinds into its 20th month, comparisons with Sri Lanka's 2009 military defeat of the Tamil Tigers have grown louder. For some, Sri Lanka represents a rare example of a state achieving total military victory over a powerful insurgent group.
Among those advancing this approach is Israeli security expert Moshe Elad, who told The Jerusalem Post last month that Sri Lanka demonstrated how 'terror groups can…be completely defeated through military means'.
'Sri Lanka did it without a Supreme Court or B'Tselem,' Elad remarked, referring to the absence of legal considerations or scrutiny by human rights groups.
Other security experts have also drawn parallels between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Hamas.
The subtext is clear: Israel should consider following the Sri Lankan model, mounting a campaign of overwhelming force to annihilate Hamas.
This argument misses the fact that Sri Lanka's victory came at the cost of immense civilian suffering, long-term instability and international legitimacy. If Israel borrows this script, it may not just replicate Sri Lanka's battlefield gains, it may also inherit its political and moral collapse.
The Sri Lankan government's war against the LTTE was among the most brutal counterinsurgency campaigns of the past century. Between 2006 and 2009, the Sri Lankan military launched coordinated offensives across several fronts and methodically dismantled the LTTE's war-making capacity.
But this military strategy also relied on a scorched-earth approach that devastated the civilian population.
As the fighting intensified, over 300,000 Tamil civilians were cornered in shrinking pockets of territory. Areas designated as 'no fire zones' were bombed; hospitals and schools were destroyed. International observers, journalists, and aid agencies were expelled or obstructed. In the final phase of the war, estimates suggest between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians were killed.
The government denied any wrongdoing. With geopolitical momentum on its side, Sri Lanka largely avoided any real accountability.
To frame this as a success story is to treat mass atrocity as a price worth paying. The danger lies not only in the ethical cost of such logic but also in its strategic consequences.
Sri Lanka's post-war years did not deliver national unity or sustainable peace. While the LTTE was wiped out as a fighting force, the deep-rooted ethnic conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils remained unresolved. The Rajapaksa government diverted enormous resources to militarise the island's north east, suppress dissent, and reconstruct the region in ways that alienated the Tamil population even further.
At the same time, the war effort saddled Sri Lanka with massive debt, much of it used to fund military expansion and prestige infrastructure projects. Combined with corruption and cronyism, this laid the groundwork for Sri Lanka's economic collapse.
By 2022, the country defaulted on its debt, faced crippling inflation, and experienced widespread protests that forced the Rajapaksa family from power. The political establishment that had claimed glory in war could not survive peace.
If Israel adopts the Sri Lankan strategy, it risks repeating not only its military triumph but its unraveling. A military win that generates long-term instability is not a victory – it is a delayed crisis.
Even as a matter of tactics, the analogy fails to hold. Hamas is embedded in a radically different geopolitical context. It has strong state backers, including Iran and Qatar, and its leadership has adapted to operate in decentralised, transnational ways.
The LTTE, by contrast, was increasingly isolated diplomatically by the end of its war. Its support networks were disrupted and its leadership physically cornered in a fixed geographic zone.
One of the most dangerous elements of the Sri Lanka comparison lies in the way that the LTTE was completely dehumanised. The World Trade Center attack in the US in 2001 resulted in a conclusive shift in global counterterrorism discourse. Groups labeled as 'terrorists' were increasingly framed not as political or military actors with goals and constituencies, but as existential threats requiring elimination.
This allowed states to ignore civilian protections, blur the lines between combatants and noncombatants and justify extreme violence.
In Sri Lanka, this meant Tamil civilians were often treated as extensions of the LTTE, collateral in a war that no longer differentiated between targets. In Gaza, similar dynamics are playing out. Entire neighborhoods have been flattened. Civilian infrastructure is treated as inherently suspicious. Humanitarian corridors are shelled. Over 55,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began in October 2023, many of them women and children.
As in Sri Lanka, the dominant narrative paints the population as indistinguishable from the militants.
This kind of discourse is not just ethically corrosive. It is strategically shortsighted. It fuels grievance, radicalisation and long-term resistance. When civilians are treated as complicit, the political space for any future reconciliation disappears.
Sri Lanka's 'success' was in part made possible by international fatigue. The West, entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan, had little appetite to challenge a state that framed its campaign as part of the global war on terror. Sri Lanka exploited this context to conduct its final war with near-total impunity.
But the effects of that impunity linger. The country remains diplomatically almost isolated on human rights issues, its war crimes unresolved and its path to reconciliation blocked by unresolved trauma. The silence of the international community did not make the consequences disappear – it only deferred them.
Israel faces a different international landscape. The International Court of Justice has already found plausible grounds to investigate Israel's actions in Gaza under the Genocide Convention. Civil society mobilisation has been far more rapid and global. The legal, political and reputational costs are mounting.
To adopt a strategy modeled on Sri Lanka in this context is not just a moral risk. It is a gamble against the weight of international law and memory.
Even if Israel were to militarily defeat Hamas, the aftermath would not be straightforward. Gaza would remain devastated, politically ungovernable and socially fractured.
The destruction of whatever is left of Hamas's current leadership would not erase the ideas that fuel its support. Nor would it build a foundation for coexistence. Without a parallel political strategy aimed at restoring Palestinian agency, justice and rights, another iteration of Hamas – or something worse – will emerge.
Sri Lanka shows that annihilation can end a war, but not the conflict that produced it. It also shows that the consequences of how a war ends last far longer than the military campaign itself.
Elad is right that Sri Lanka fought its war without a Supreme Court or a B'Tselem. That is exactly why it should not be the model.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

35 minutes ago

• Mint

Trump again snubs spy chief Tulsi Gabbard's take on Iran's nuclear programme, says ‘she is wrong'

US President Donald Trump said that the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she earlier stated said that the US believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, whereas he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to work out a possible ceasefire. He bluntly said, 'She's wrong.' Trump echoed remarks made by Gabbard when speaking to reporters on Tuesday. 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having it," he had said. While testifying to Congress in March that the US intelligence community continued to believe that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon, Tulsi said, 'The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She took to X on Friday and clarified, 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' She added her testimony was taken "out of context in a way to manufacture division'. Tulsi in March called Iran's enriched uranium stockpile as unprecedented for a state without such weapons and mentioned the government was monitoring the situation closely. She also specified that Iran had begun conversing about nuclear weapons in public, 'emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' The assessment presented by Gabbard has not altered, Reuters reported citing a source with access to US intelligence reports. US spy services also assessed that it would take up to three years for Iran to build a warhead with which it could strike a target of its choice. Some experts, however, argue that Iran could produce and deliver a crude, untested nuclear device in a much shorter timeframe, though its effectiveness would be uncertain. Trump has often dismissed the conclusions of US intelligence agencies, which he and his supporters have accused, without offering evidence, of being part of a "deep state" conspiracy of officials working against his presidency. During his first term, he frequently clashed with US intelligence agencies, notably over their judgement that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit him, as well as his willingness to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials of involvement. The White House stated that Trump would decide involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict over the next two weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended a week of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, claiming that Tehran was close to acquiring a nuclear warhead. Iran, however, denies pursuing nuclear weapons, insisting that its uranium enrichment programme is intended solely for peaceful purposes. (With inputs from Reuters and AP)

First Post

an hour ago

• First Post

Iran urges India to condemn 'Israeli aggression', asks Pakistan to not 'harm' interests

There is speculation that Washington was looking at using Pakistani military bases in case it decides to launch attacks on Tehran read more Iranian flags fly as fire and smoke from an Israeli attack on Sharan Oil depot rise, following Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran. Reuters Iran expects India and other like-minded nations to condemn Israeli 'military aggression' against it as such actions are a 'breach' of international law, a senior Iranian diplomat said on Friday. Mohammad Javad Hosseini, the deputy chief of mission at the Iranian embassy, also hoped that Pakistan would not do anything that will harm Iran's interests. His response on Pakistan came when asked at a media briefing about Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir's meeting with US President Donald Trump in the White House on Wednesday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is speculation that Washington was looking at using Pakistani military bases in case it decides to launch attacks on Tehran. Hosseini also said that India is a leader of the Global South and Iran expects New Delhi to condemn the Israeli actions of 'breaching' international law by attacking a sovereign country. 'We believe every country including India should condemn it (Israeli military actions), not because of their relations with Iran but because these actions are in breach of global norms,' he said. Israel and Iran have fired hundreds of missiles and drones at each other's cities as well as military facilities since the hostilities began over a week ago. Asked if Iran was considering shutting the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian diplomat did not give a direct reply and said several options are on the table. Nearly 30 per cent of the world's daily oil consumption passes through the Strait of Hormuz. According to the International Energy Agency, even a brief disruption of passage through the strait will have a significant impact on oil markets. 'We have many things on the table, but it doesn't mean that we are going to do it now. It depends on the situation and how the other players want to go,' Hosseini said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If they want to solve the problem, definitely some of these things will be put aside,' he added. Asked about possible impact of the hostilities with Israel on Iran's Chabahar port, the Iranian diplomat only said that any further escalation of tensions could have far-reaching implications for the flow of energy and other commodities. 'It is not just a matter of Chabahar, it's a matter of the whole region. If it escalates, it will definitely affect many things, definitely the flow of oil, shipments and commodities which are going through these channels will be affected,' Hosseini said. 'Because of this, those countries who will be affected, it is better for them to think and to start stopping this aggression, to avoid any kind of negative effects on the economy of the region, which will definitely spread out to the whole world,' he said.

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Iran launches 18th wave of Operation True Promise-3 using Shahed-136 drones against Israel

Shahed-136 drones deployed in latest Iranian strike on Israeli military targets Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched the 18th wave of Operation True Promise-3 on June 20, targeting Israeli operational support centers. The latest phase of the campaign involved the use of Shahed-136 drones and precision-guided missiles According to IRGC sources, 'Our precision missiles hit their designated targets in Israel,' signaling what they describe as a successful engagement against Israeli military infrastructure. Iranian officials further emphasized that the attack focused specifically on operational support facilities within Israeli read: Iran Israel latest: World War 3 fear grips as Russia threatens USA, Turkey backs Tehran In this latest wave, the IRGC utilized Shahed-136 drones, which have previously been employed in regional conflicts and are known for their long-range capability and explosive payloads. These drones have been a central component of Iran's evolving aerial strike IRGC claimed that Israeli air defense systems failed to intercept the Shahed-136 drones during the operation. 'Israel's latest defense systems failed in interception operations,' the group stated. 'Israeli air defense systems did not intercept the Shahed-136 drones.'Iran also reiterated that its campaign against Israeli military assets will continue, stating, 'Missile and drone operations will continue unabated.'This marks a significant escalation in drone and missile warfare in the region, as tensions between Iran and Israel remain elevated. Iranian military officials continue to assert that the ongoing operations are part of a broader strategic further details have been provided by Israeli officials regarding the impact of the latest wave or potential casualties. The Israeli military has not confirmed or denied the specific claims related to the interception failures or damage inflicted by the strikes.