By Punsara Amarasinghe –

Tisaranee  Gunasekara’s article in the Colombo Telegraph, under the title “Hiriketiya & The Chabad Lubavitch – Sinhala Ravaya Alliance” seems to have created an apocalyptic effect on a possible Zionist – Sinhalese Buddhist alliance, with the multiple facts that she presents in her opinion piece. Ostensibly, the details she highlights stir concern about the greater danger looming on Sri Lanka’s coast from Israeli tourists, mainly due to the activities of Chabad houses. Yet her claims depicting Chabad houses as an Israeli bogeyman in Sri Lanka stand far from reality, regardless of their appealing nature to the gullible Lankans.

Tisaranee demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding Judaism and the Chabad movement by presenting several inaccurate claims. The historical record indicates that the Chabad movement has maintained a clear Non-Zionist position since its inception, with its leaders prior to 1948 explicitly rejecting political Zionism. The movement’s stance shifted only after a significant campaign by its seventh leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel, to support the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). However, this support should not serve as the sole justification for hostility toward Chabad houses, as analogous support has been expressed by Shia mosques in Islamic theocratic regimes for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Supporting national defense forces should not be construed as grounds for condemnation.

A significant error in the author’s argument is the misrepresentation of the Tanya’s concept of Jewish exclusiveness regarding the divine soul. Jewish theology references the concept of the animal soul (nefesh habehamit), which is understood as the vital life force that animates physical bodies and drives basic instincts. Drawing from Kabbalistic literature, both the Chabad movement and broader Jewish thought maintain that the animal soul present in humans is neutral. Furthermore, Chabad’s emphasis on the uniqueness of the Jewish nation should not be dismissed as trivial, as Tisaranee suggests, since most religions emphasize the distinctiveness of their own beliefs. For example, Islam asserts that being Muslim is essential for entry into paradise, and Christian theology, prior to the Second Vatican Council, reserved salvation for Catholics. These examples underscore a common feature among Abrahamic faiths. Therefore, Tisaranee’s narrow interpretation of Chabad’s religious ideology is misleading.

In particular, Chabad’s theology is deeply rooted in Hasidic Jewish mysticism, which regards the material world as a potential dwelling place of the divine and holds that the observance of every commandment (mitzvah) contributes to the elevation of the physical world. The theological position developed by its last leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was often interpreted as opposing territorial compromise through the lens of the Jewish principle of pikuach nefesh, which places the preservation of human life at the centre of Jewish legal and ethical reasoning. From this perspective, returning land or negotiating boundaries with hostile neighbours could be understood as endangering lives and increasing, rather than reducing, the risk of military conflict. Only a relatively small segment of the movement maintains close political affinities with right-wing parties in Israel, whereas the broader Chabad movement is characterized by a more complex relationship with Messianic Zionism.

By invoking the Noahide tradition, which extends certain fundamental principles of rabbinic ethics to all humanity, Tisaranee attempts to portray Chabad as a fundamentalist movement opposed to idolatry and questions how such a movement could establish meaningful relations with Buddhists in Sri Lanka, where images and devotional practices play an important role in religious rituals. In fact, however, emphasizing the apparent contrast between the two traditions regarding religious images and devotional practices overlooks important philosophical affinities between Buddhism and Judaism. I became aware of some of these mystical parallels when I met Rabbi Mendy Crombie during a visit to Israel last year. He was among the early rabbis associated with Chabad House in Colombo and played an important role in fostering dialogue and ties between Judaism and Buddhism. During our brief conversation, he drew parallels between the Jewish mystical concept of bittul ha-yesh and the Buddhist concept of śūnyatā in Madhyamaka Buddhism. He was also familiar with the philosophical correspondence between the German-born Buddhist monk Ven. Nyanaponika and David Ben-Gurion.

Had Tisaranee engaged with Rodger Kamenetz’s widely known work The Jew in the Lotus, which explores the possibilities of Jewish-Buddhist dialogue, she might have approached the question of the Noahide tradition with greater nuance.

The second half of the article presents the organized protests against the Chabad House in Hiriketiya as representative of public sentiment on the island. While making a cynical remark about an alleged Chabad–Sinhala Ravaya alliance, she questions whether the effort to forge ties between the two is ultimately futile. This characterization is misleading, as no such formal alliance exists. The intervention of Ven. Akmeemana Dayaratana was voluntary, and there is no indication that the Chabad movement had established prior contact with him.

More broadly, Chabad Houses around the world generally seek to maintain their religious identity rather than assimilate into local cultures, and they are not ordinarily intended to function as political organizations. Chabad activities primarily focus on serving the religious needs of Jewish visitors and local Jewish communities, including by providing kosher food and religious services. Although the Chabad website contains information about conversion to Judaism, as Tisaranee notes in her article, the existence of such information should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of an active proselytizing agenda. Conversion to Judaism is generally understood as a lengthy and demanding process requiring sustained commitment and sincere religious conviction.

Overall, Tisaranee Gunasekara’s article contains numerous factual inconsistencies and, in several instances, appears to rely on interpretations of Judaism that are insufficiently nuanced. These shortcomings, in turn, raise questions about the extent to which the author’s personal assumptions may have shaped her analysis. Alexander Pope’s well-known observation that “a little learning is a dangerous thing” may serve as a fitting reminder of the risks of drawing broad conclusions from limited understanding.

*Writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University