Navi Pillay and the Nobel Peace Prize: When Defending Israel Becomes a Crime in the Eyes of the World

A decision that raises serious questions

The announcement that South African jurist Navanethem “Navi” Pillay has been awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has left me genuinely dumbfounded. Pillay, a woman of Indian Tamil heritage who grew up under apartheid in South Africa, has enjoyed a distinguished career in international law and human rights. The Norwegian Nobel Committee recognised her for her work promoting peace, international law and accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Yet Pillay also chaired the United Nations commission of inquiry that concluded in 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Israel strongly rejects that conclusion. For me, this connection raises an uncomfortable question: how can someone whose work has helped advance such a grave accusation against Israel receive the world's most prominent peace prize without provoking serious questions about the judgement behind the decision?

I am not Jewish, but I am married to a Jewish person, and I have been fortunate enough to visit Israel on several occasions. Those visits, together with my interest in history, have given me a deeper appreciation of the country's history, its people and the security concerns that shape Israeli life. I do not pretend that visiting a country makes someone an authority on every aspect of its politics. However, I believe that anyone who wishes to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must look beyond the latest headlines and examine the history, the threats Israel has faced and the political ideologies that have made lasting peace so difficult to achieve.

My objection is not to human rights, international law or the prosecution of genuine crimes. Those principles matter. My objection is to what I see as a growing tendency to present Israel's actions as though they occurred in a historical vacuum, while the actions and intentions of its enemies receive far less attention. I believe this imbalance has contributed to a public debate in which defending Israel's existence is too often portrayed as an inherently suspect position, while the language of genocide is used before the underlying legal questions have been adequately explained to the public.

Jewish history cannot simply be erased

The Jewish connection to the land of Israel extends back thousands of years. Ancient Jewish kingdoms existed in the region, and Judea was central to Jewish history, religion and national identity. Jewish communities continued to live in the land through successive empires and periods of displacement. The modern State of Israel emerged from the movement for Jewish national self-determination, against the background of centuries of persecution and the catastrophe of the Holocaust.

The region was part of the Ottoman Empire before the First World War. Following the war, Britain assumed responsibility for Palestine under a League of Nations mandate. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed British support for establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, while also stating that the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities should not be prejudiced. It did not establish the modern State of Israel, nor did it settle the competing national aspirations of Jews and Arabs. Those disputes continued throughout the British Mandate and ultimately formed part of the history leading to Israel's establishment in 1948.

I find it astonishing that discussions of this conflict so often begin with the assumption that Israel is an artificial presence whose legitimacy is permanently open to question. The modern political history of the region is complicated, and Palestinians have their own national identity and claims to self-determination. Recognising those facts does not require denying the Jewish people's historical connection to the land or Israel's right to exist. The existence of two national movements with competing claims is precisely why any lasting settlement must recognise the legitimate rights and security of both peoples.

The history of Jewish vulnerability in the region also predates the establishment of Israel. In August 1929, during the riots in British Mandate Palestine, Arab rioters killed 67 Jews in Hebron. Jewish homes and synagogues were attacked, and the surviving community was evacuated by the British authorities. The wider disturbances killed 133 Jews across Palestine. These events are a documented reminder that Jewish civilians faced lethal communal violence long before the modern Israeli state existed.

I do not cite Hebron to suggest that every Arab is hostile to Jews. That would be an unjustified generalisation. I cite it because history matters, and because Jewish fears about their physical security did not begin with the present war. A serious account of this conflict must acknowledge the persecution and violence that have shaped Jewish historical consciousness, just as it must acknowledge the suffering and displacement experienced by Palestinians.

7 October 2023 changed everything

The events of 7 October 2023 should be central to any honest discussion of the present war. Hamas-led attackers crossed into Israel, murdered civilians, abducted hostages and committed atrocities that shocked the world. Families were attacked in their homes, young people were murdered at a music festival, and innocent people were taken into captivity in Gaza. These were not simply military operations against an army. They included deliberate attacks on civilians.

Israel responded by declaring its intention to dismantle Hamas and prevent another massacre. From my perspective, the question of whether Israel has a right to protect its population should never have been controversial. Any country would be expected to respond to an attack of this magnitude and take steps to prevent its repetition. The more difficult questions concern how that response is conducted, what precautions are taken to protect civilians and whether individual military actions comply with international law.

Yet I find it deeply troubling that so much of the international debate has concentrated on Israel's response while the events that triggered the war are sometimes reduced to a footnote. The massacre of Israeli civilians cannot be treated as a minor detail in a story about Palestinian suffering. Nor can the subsequent suffering of Palestinians erase the responsibility of those who planned and carried out the attack.

Hamas's tunnels and the realities of urban warfare

Hamas has developed an extensive tunnel network beneath Gaza and has conducted military operations within a densely populated civilian environment. This creates a profoundly difficult battlefield. Military infrastructure, tunnels, weapons and combatants may be located beneath or close to homes and other civilian buildings. Israel has repeatedly argued that Hamas's military strategy exposes Gaza's civilian population to danger.

There have also been documented allegations and findings concerning the use of civilian areas to shield military objectives. Such conduct raises serious questions about Hamas's obligations under international humanitarian law. Civilians must not be deliberately used to shield military objectives, and all parties to a conflict have obligations to protect the civilian population.

For me, this is an essential part of the story that is too often overlooked. If Hamas operates from within densely populated areas and builds military infrastructure beneath civilian neighbourhoods, the resulting battlefield is not comparable to a conventional confrontation between two armies operating on separate front lines. The danger to civilians is increased by the nature of the fighting and the decisions made by the combatants.

That does not mean Israel is automatically justified in every attack. The presence of Hamas fighters or tunnels does not remove Israel's obligation to distinguish between military targets and civilians, assess proportionality and take feasible precautions. But neither should Hamas's military strategy disappear from the analysis simply because the consequences of urban warfare are so visible.

I also question the moral position of an organisation that claims to represent the Palestinian people while pursuing a military strategy that places their lives and homes at extraordinary risk. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election and consolidated its control of Gaza in 2007. That history matters, but it does not mean that every Gazan supported Hamas, that every resident chose its rule, or that children born since then bear responsibility for the organisation's decisions. The responsibility for Hamas's actions belongs to those who planned, ordered and carried them out.

The important point is that the war cannot be understood by examining only the Israeli side. Hamas's conduct, its treatment of civilians, its use of tunnels and its decision to launch the 7 October attack are all relevant to an honest assessment of the conflict.

What Palestinian public opinion showed before the war

One of the most important pieces of evidence, in my view, is the public opinion that existed before 7 October 2023. This matters because it challenges the suggestion that support for armed confrontation emerged only as a reaction to Israel's subsequent military campaign.

In September 2023, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted a survey asking Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank about the most effective way to end the Israeli occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state. The results were striking: 53% of respondents selected armed struggle, compared with 20% who selected negotiations and 24% who selected popular non-violent resistance. In Gaza specifically, 51% selected armed struggle. The same survey found that 58% supported a return to armed confrontations and an intifada.

These figures deserve serious attention. They show that support for armed struggle was already widespread before the war began. They cannot be dismissed as opinions formed solely in response to the devastation that followed 7 October.

I recognise that the poll asked about armed struggle as a means of achieving political objectives. It did not establish that every respondent supported the murder of civilians or the elimination of Israel. But that distinction should not be used to avoid the underlying question: what does it mean for the prospects of peace when a majority of respondents in a pre-war survey consider armed struggle the most effective route to their political goals?

For me, the answer is obvious. It suggests that the obstacles to peace extend beyond Israeli military policy. Political leadership, public attitudes, education and the willingness to accept Israel's existence all matter. Any analysis that ignores these factors is incomplete.

I am particularly concerned about educational materials and political messages that glorify violence against Israelis, promote antisemitism or deny the Jewish people's right to national self-determination. Children who grow up surrounded by such messages may come to regard confrontation as normal and compromise as betrayal. If peace is ever to become more than a diplomatic slogan, the messages delivered to the next generation must change.

Coexistence exists, but rejection remains a serious obstacle

Israel has more than two million Arab citizens, representing approximately one-fifth of its population. Arab citizens participate in public life, attend universities, work in hospitals, run businesses and serve in a wide range of professions. Israeli society is not free from discrimination, political tension or inequality, but the existence of this large Arab citizen population demonstrates that people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds can live within the same state and legal framework.

I have seen aspects of this coexistence during my visits to Israel. It is one reason I reject the idea that Jews and Arabs are inherently incapable of living together. People can share workplaces, hospitals, universities and neighbourhoods, even when the wider political environment remains deeply divided.

The question I believe deserves far greater attention is why acceptance of Israel's right to exist remains such a serious obstacle in parts of Palestinian political life. The slogan “From the River to the Sea” illustrates the problem. Some people use it to call for equal rights throughout the territory; others use it to demand the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. The meaning depends on the speaker and context, but calls for Israel's destruction cannot reasonably be treated as harmless political rhetoric.

Israel's Jewish population should not have to surrender its national identity or accept the possibility of its destruction to demonstrate a commitment to peace. The Jewish people's connection to the land is historical, cultural and religious, while Israel's existence is also a present-day political reality. Any sustainable peace must confront that reality rather than pretend that the country can simply be erased.

Warnings to civilians and the genocide accusation

Another fact that deserves consideration is Israel's use of warnings and evacuation instructions before many military operations. The Israeli military has used leaflets dropped from aircraft, telephone messages and other communications to warn civilians about areas where operations were expected. These warnings formed part of Israel's stated effort to reduce civilian casualties while pursuing Hamas.

I believe these warnings are relevant evidence. They show that the question of civilian protection cannot be assessed solely by counting the deaths that occurred. We must also consider the military objectives, the precautions taken, the information available to commanders and the conduct of Hamas within the areas being targeted.

However, warnings are not a complete answer. Civilians may be unable to leave, evacuation routes may be unsafe, and destinations may lack adequate shelter, food or medical care. A warning does not automatically make an attack lawful, just as civilian deaths do not automatically establish that an attack was unlawful. Each operation must be assessed on its evidence and under the applicable legal standards.

This is where I believe the debate over genocide has become deeply troubling. Genocide is not simply another word for a devastating war, a high civilian death toll or widespread destruction. Under international law, it requires prohibited acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. That specific intent is a central element of the crime.

Israel argues that its military objective is to dismantle Hamas, recover hostages and protect its citizens, rather than to destroy the Palestinian people. The commission chaired by Pillay reached a different conclusion, and Israel rejects its findings. The disagreement must be assessed through evidence and legal reasoning, not settled by political slogans.

For me, the central question is whether the evidence establishes the specific intent required for genocide, rather than the consequences of a military campaign against Hamas in a densely populated territory. Israel's stated objectives, the nature of Hamas's military infrastructure, the warnings issued to civilians, the conduct of military operations and the statements of political and military leaders all require careful examination. No single factor is conclusive in isolation.

I do not deny the suffering of Palestinian civilians. The devastation in Gaza is real and deserves serious attention. But the scale of that suffering, by itself, does not settle the legal question of genocide. Equally, the fact that Israel issued warnings does not prove that every military action was lawful or that genocide was impossible. My objection is to the way an accusation of such magnitude can become accepted as a political verdict before the public has properly considered the legal elements and the full evidentiary record.

Why the Nobel decision concerns me

• 

• 

• 

This brings me back to Navi Pillay. The Nobel Committee has recognised her for her work promoting international law and accountability for grave international crimes. Her wider career includes significant work in human rights and international justice. Those contributions should be acknowledged. But her leadership of the UN commission that concluded Israel had committed genocide in Gaza inevitably makes the award controversial.

A commission's findings are not the same thing as a final judgment by a court. The award itself is not a judicial ruling, but it carries enormous moral authority. Many people will interpret the Nobel Prize as an endorsement of the laureate's most prominent work, including the genocide accusation against Israel.

I believe the committee should be prepared to explain its judgement and address the controversy seriously. Does the award promote peace by strengthening international accountability, as the committee argues, or does it risk deepening the perception that international institutions have already reached a political conclusion about Israel? That is a legitimate question, and it should not be dismissed simply because the award recipient has a distinguished career.

My concern is not that human rights advocates should avoid criticising Israel. Governments must be accountable, and allegations of unlawful conduct should be investigated. My concern is that international institutions must demonstrate consistency, impartiality and a willingness to consider the history and security concerns of all parties. If their decisions are perceived as applying different standards to Israel and its adversaries, their credibility will suffer.

The United Nations and the loss of meaningful dialogue

I was equally disturbed by the sight of dozens of delegates walking out as Benjamin Netanyahu began his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 24 September 2026. The walkout was widely reported and reflected the intense international opposition to Netanyahu and his government's policies.

Whatever one's opinion of Netanyahu, refusing to listen to the representative of a member state does little to encourage meaningful dialogue. International institutions should be places where difficult arguments are confronted, evidence is examined and opposing views are heard. A walkout may communicate political disapproval, but it does not resolve the questions at the heart of the conflict.

I believe the United Nations has a responsibility to apply its principles consistently. The murder of Israeli civilians cannot be excused, and Palestinian civilians must not be treated as expendable. Hamas's conduct must be examined alongside Israel's military decisions. International law cannot mean one thing when applied to an adversary of Israel and another when applied to Israel itself.

The Nobel decision and the walkout are different events, but together they reinforce my concern that international debate has become increasingly polarised. I want to see more rigorous examination of evidence and less reliance on gestures that may satisfy political constituencies without advancing peace.

The regional threat cannot be ignored

• 

• 

• 

Israel's security concerns do not end at Gaza's borders. Iran has supported armed organisations hostile to Israel, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Hamas has also received Iranian support. These organisations have different histories, structures and objectives, and they should not be treated as interchangeable. Nevertheless, their armed activities and rhetoric have formed part of the security environment confronting Israel.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly adopted highly confrontational rhetoric towards the Israeli government. Syria's political future and its relationship with Israel also remain important questions. These circumstances help explain why many Israelis regard security not as an abstract political issue but as a matter of national survival.

I do not claim that every Arab nation or every Muslim shares a desire to destroy Israel. Such a claim would be both inaccurate and unfair. But there are governments and armed organisations in the region that have threatened Israel's existence, and those threats cannot be ignored when evaluating Israeli military decisions.

I find it difficult to understand how Israel is expected to guarantee the safety of its citizens while armed organisations continue to threaten it, launch attacks and hold hostages, yet its response is sometimes discussed as though the security threat itself were irrelevant. A serious debate must consider both Israel's right to defend its population and the legal limits that govern how it does so.

The real test of a commitment to peace

Ultimately, I find the decision to award Navi Pillay the Nobel Peace Prize deeply troubling. I believe the award risks reinforcing a narrative in which Israel's efforts to defend itself are judged without sufficient consideration of the history, the 7 October massacre, Hamas's military strategy and the public attitudes that existed before the war.

The suffering of Palestinian civilians is real, but it does not erase the suffering of Israeli victims or excuse Hamas's atrocities. Nor does the right of Israel to defend itself place every Israeli military action beyond scrutiny. The same principles must apply to everyone. Allegations of war crimes and genocide must be examined rigorously, with the necessary evidence and legal standards, rather than accepted or rejected according to political allegiance.

For me, the path to peace begins with an unequivocal recognition that Israel has a right to exist and that Jewish people have a historical connection to their homeland. It also requires an end to attacks on civilians, the release of hostages, accountability for unlawful conduct and a willingness to reject the ideologies that perpetuate violence. Peace cannot be built on the assumption that Israel alone must change while those who seek its destruction remain unchallenged.

A Nobel Peace Prize should inspire confidence in the pursuit of justice and coexistence. It should encourage a future in which Israelis and Palestinians can live securely and with dignity, rather than deepen the divisions that already exist. I question this award because I fear that the message it sends will be interpreted as a political verdict on Israel at a time when the legal and historical questions demand the most careful scrutiny.

I want to see peace. But peace cannot be achieved by ignoring history, overlooking the threat of terrorism or treating the defence of Israel's existence as an inherently suspect position. Nor can it be achieved by denying the suffering of Palestinian civilians. It requires honesty, consistency and the courage to confront uncomfortable facts on every side. That is what I believe the international community should be demanding, and that is why I remain deeply troubled by this decision.

Take care!

Prof. Carl Boniface Ex Muslim spills the beans on Islam which helps explain Palestinian behaviour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxEi4KZfFF4