Well, the only thing that consoles me about this year’s grotesque award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay is that the same Prize was awarded to Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat. But in some ways this Prize is even worse, for Pillay got it for ““for her efforts to promote peace and international law,” or, as the Nobel Prize page notes:
At a time of existential challenges – including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time – international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity.
In historic international court cases, Navi Pillay has shown that legal measures can help prevent acts of war and violence. She has also contributed to strengthen the institutions of international law. Her independence, expertise and steadfastness have made her one of the most respected international jurists of our time.
What did she do to prevent acts of war and violence? She promoted the idea that Israel committed genocide, without saying a word about the explicitly outlined genocide of Hamas. (She did condemn Hamas for war crimes, but, as you see below, that’s not why she got the Nobel Peace Prize.) As the NYT reports:(all bolding henceforth is mine):
Navi Pillay, a South African human rights lawyer and international judge, was announced on Friday as the recipient of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for what the Norwegian Nobel Committee called her efforts to uphold a system of international law that is increasingly under attack.
The committee said that Ms. Pillay had been “instrumental in ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted.” Formerly the United Nations’ top human rights official, and a judge at the International Criminal Court and on an international tribunal investigating the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, she is “one of the most respected international jurists of our time,” the committee said.
“Let me dedicate this award to all the survivors of international crimes as well as to practitioners and defenders of international justice,” Ms. Pillay said at a news conference in Germany.
Last year, a United Nations commission led by Ms. Pillay determined that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, a finding that the Israeli government rejected. The decision to honor her added to the growing global blowback against Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., told The New York Times that honoring Ms. Pillay “would not only damage the credibility of the Nobel Committee, but also tarnish the legacy of the distinguished laureates who have received this honor throughout history.”
Though the committee did not explicitly mention Gaza in its statement honoring Ms. Pillay, its chairman, Jorgen Watne Frydnes, told reporters that her work on the U.N. commission was “an important part of the reasoning why she received the prize.”
There you have it. But there were some problems with the “determination that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians”. I’ve already discussed the ludicrous “genocide” accusation against Israel as one of the war’s Big Lies, but Maarten Boudry did a better job in his Substack article, “They don’t believe it either.”
And one take from Grok:
What is the problem with the UN’s finding that Israel committed genocide?
The claim is not a finding by “the UN.” It comes from the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (the Pillay Commission), a body created by the UN Human Rights Council. In a September 2025 report, the three commissioners concluded that Israel had committed four of the five acts listed in the Genocide Convention against Palestinians in Gaza, with the specific intent required for genocide, and that President Herzog, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and former Defense Minister Gallant had incited it. The UN as an institution has not adopted that conclusion. The International Court of Justice case brought by South Africa remains unresolved on the merits; written pleadings run into 2029, and the Court’s earlier provisional-measures orders found only that certain Palestinian rights under the Convention were “plausible” and at risk—not that genocide had occurred.
The problems with the Commission’s conclusion are structural, methodological, and legal.
The Human Rights Council maintains a permanent agenda item directed solely at Israel and has long produced a disproportionate share of its country-specific resolutions against it. The Commission’s members entered with public records of hostility toward Israel. Miloon Kothari had spoken of the “Jewish lobby” controlling social media; Chris Sidoti had dismissed concerns about antisemitism; Navi Pillay had a documented history of partisan statements on the conflict. Israel has refused to cooperate with the body since 2022 on grounds of bias. The resulting reports rely heavily on the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry (which does not separate combatants from civilians), unnamed witnesses, NGOs, and outlets such as Al Jazeera, while giving minimal weight to Israeli operational data or the documented embedding of Hamas forces.
The report largely erases Hamas as a fighting force. It does not seriously engage the scale of the tunnel network, the systematic use of civilian sites, the diversion of aid, or the October 7, 2023 attack that killed roughly 1,200 people and took hostages—the casus belli. Statements by Israeli officials are parsed selectively (“human animals,” biblical allusions) while wartime context and explicit targeting of Hamas are discounted. UN Watch’s detailed rebuttal and other legal analyses describe the evidentiary base as one-sided and the inferences of intent as conjecture.
Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, the decisive element is dolus specialis: specific intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, as such. High civilian casualties in urban warfare against an enemy that operates from within the civilian population do not establish that intent. Reported deaths (Gaza Health Ministry figures in the mid-to-high 70,000s by late 2026, including combatants) have not reduced Gaza’s population to anything approaching destruction; estimates remain around 2.1 million. Demographic breakdowns of identified fatalities show men of fighting age heavily over-represented relative to their share of the pre-war population. Israel issued evacuation warnings, opened corridors, and facilitated large volumes of aid—conduct difficult to reconcile with a policy of physical annihilation. Some advocacy groups that reach a genocide conclusion have acknowledged they are applying a broader standard than the Convention’s text and existing jurisprudence require.
The same bodies have not applied comparable scrutiny to Hamas’s charter language and explicit aims, or to far larger death tolls in other recent conflicts. The Commission’s finding therefore functions more as an amplification of a pre-existing political narrative than as an impartial legal determination. The only forum that can issue a binding ruling on the state responsibility question is the ICJ, and it has not done so.
Before [Pillay] was named to investigate Israel, she had already applied the apartheid label and backed sanctions:
- In a November 2017 interview she said apartheid means enforced segregation on racial lines “and that is what is happening in Israel.”
- In June 2020 she signed a South African BDS Coalition petition titled “Sanction Apartheid Israel!,” which called for an arms embargo, an end to military-security cooperation, and suspension of free-trade agreements, and equated Israeli policy with South African apartheid.
- In May 2021 she described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as “inhuman” and again compared it to apartheid South Africa.
- On 14 June 2021, weeks after the May 2021 Israel–Hamas fighting, she signed a joint letter to President Biden decrying Israel’s “domination and oppression of the Palestinian people” and “ever-expanding discrimination and systemic oppression,” and characterizing clashes at Al-Aqsa as aggressive actions against peaceful protesters amounting to forced dispossession.
As for the 2026 Nobel Prize contest , we have a winner, but not for the Peace Prize, as nobody was dumb enough to guess Pillay. The winner is Renée Szostek, who guessed Carson for the literature prize. If you are Szostek, please get in touch with me so we can get you your boook.
Finally, a tweet from Maarten Boudry; you can see the letter, signed by U.S. military personnel, here.
The question of genocide in Gaza is not just a matter of “semantics,” as many are now claiming, quietly backpedaling from their earlier confident assertions. It is not a borderline case, or a matter of interpretation, or an issue on which reasonable people can differ.
It is an obscene lie, contradicted by everything we know about Israel’s conduct during the war (which is not to absolve the IDF of war crimes). Here are 76 retired senior military leaders and legal experts flatly rejecting the genocide allegation:
“Israel has not committed genocide but rather set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians.”
The fact that the rector of my own university wanted to prohibit questioning the “Gaza genocide,” as though it were the equivalent of flat-earthism or climate denialism, still fills me with disbelief and rage. One day it will become clear who are the real flat-earthers here.
— Maarten Boudry (@mboudry) October 9, 2026
Well, I was wrong is guessing U.N. Secretary General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres for the Peace Prize. But I was on the right track. Maybe Guterres doesn’t hate Israel enough for the Nobel Committee’s tastes.
What is becoming clear to me as I read Dara Horn’s “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question” is that when an active phase of Jew-hatred happens, it becomes much harder to work against the tide of condemnation. I say it not to justify it (of course,) but to point out that people who refuse to join this wave of hatred feel outnumbered and even threatened. It is extremely difficult to find a way to protest this hatred without being dismissed. Logical arguments simply fall on deaf ears. These are awful times.
That is why it is so important to do so, to hold a line against the propaganda, to call your representatives when the administration does something reprehensible, to let people know where you stand so they will know they are not alone.
Awful times indeed. In my circle of family and friends, I am the ONLY ONE who defends Israel and stands with them against the horror that is Hamas. It is very isolating and discouraging. Wednesday evening I attended a remembrance of Oct. 7 ceremony, put on by the Jewish Federation of Ottawa. The security surrounding the event was unbelievable, not to mention the vetting that happened ahead of time just to be able to attend. That should be enough to show where the real danger lies, and it’s not with the Jews.
Ms. Horne and San Harris had a long interview on his show the other day, which was very interesting.
I don’t think the Nobel Prize has a lot of credibility ever since they gave it to Arafat. Unfortunately, like the UN, a lot of people put trust in it.
D.A.
NYC
I’ve never written to politicians more in my entire life than now, even politicians in other states. On October 7, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas ordered flags in the state of Texas to be flown at half mast in remembrance of the victims of October 7. I wrote to the Governor, thanking him for standing up for Israel, for the Jewish people, and for American values. Can it help? Who knows. But we need to do all we can to defend against this dangerous tide.
People who do the right thing need our support.
Gave the Peace Prize to a brown woman who is unlikely to give it away to Trump — at least that’s how I try to see it.
Dear Jerry Coyne,
I am Portuguese and I discovered your website several years ago, through the posts of the late Grania Spingies.
What I liked most about your posts was the fact that it always seemed to me that you tried to look at the facts rationally, objectively, looking at the various arguments and the available data, even if you might eventually disagree with how you felt about them. And, of course, I loved all your posts about religion, precisely because of that.
And then suddenly, I realize that you are just like all other human beings, who for ideological and/or other reasons (and not rational and objective ones), perhaps because you identify as Jewish, do not even consider the possibility of being wrong about Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians and the occupied territories, confusing (although I believe it is not deliberate) the criticism of how Israel (through its politicians) has behaved over the last few years, particularly these last 3 years. And no, this is not a way to erase/minimize, or even justify the horror of October 7th.
But the atrocities committed on the 7th are not justification for the horror of what has been done in the last 3 years by the Israeli government, and no, I am not anti-Semitic and I don’t even think that the population of Israel is genocidal, even if its government is acting as such. I started my comment by saying that I was Portuguese, precisely to point out the fact that “our governments” can make decisions that may be contrary to the most fundamental human rights, it does not mean that I will think that all Portuguese, or all North Americans (USA) or all Israelis are stupid, ignorant or bad people who agree with atrocities committed against other human beings by their rulers (theoretically democratically elected).
It also pains me to read that you write: “High civilian casualties in urban warfare against an enemy that operates from within the civilian population do not establish that intent.” Yes, it is true that according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the definition of genocide is: “Acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group through killing, causing serious harm, inflicting destructive living conditions, preventing births or forcibly transferring children.” But wouldn’t what the Israeli government has done over the last 3 years fit within this concept?
But let’s suppose it doesn’t fit. I accept that. But is what has been done to the Palestinian population even acceptable? To give an example, it would be the same as if the Portuguese, or any other people, had to be killed, their homes destroyed, their children killed and/or mutilated simply because the politicians who are in charge of the country’s “destiny” had committed acts of terrorism against another people.
“What I find comical is that so much rationality, so much objectivity, and so many ‘solid’ arguments used to deconstruct the theses of religious people are completely lost when it comes to something that is dear to you (and I understand that it is because you are jew, and that’s ok. I am Portuguese and, according to my parents, Catholic, because I was baptized.). But suddenly, all that objectivity is lost… Why?
But as You usually say: “I Digress”..
Also, I didn’t want to fail to thank you for all these years of so many fabulous posts from which I learned so much… But paraphrasing two Portuguese proverbs: “Reason, even when severe, is always a sincere friend” and “Presumption and holy water, each one takes what they want.”
Many thanks for everything, and I do miss Grania Spingies posts. She was always amazing and objetive.
And please don’t get me wrong, but I cannot stand any form of terrorism, regardless of who commits it, whether they are of a certain nationality, belong to a particular religious group, or whatever.
Obrigada
Paula Ventura
I will ignore for the time being both the fact that your letter is longer than the acceptable length by 50%, your insults about my behavior being “comical”, and your claim that I accept the genocidal nature of the Israeli government because I am Jewish (in fact, I wasn’t particularly pro-Israel until the world pushed back on Israel after Oct. 7.) Instead of having to repeat my arguments about why the Israeli government and the IDF did not try to wipe out as many Gazans as possible, let me refer you to the article by Maarten Boudry about the genocide canard that I mentioned this morning, “They don’t believe it either,” which you can find here: https://maartenboudry.substack.com/p/they-dont-believe-it-either
I will add that I deny that the Israeli government is dedicated to terrorism against Gazans, as terrorism is the deliberate infliction of death or injury on noncombatants. I think you have the wrong side as the terrorists.
Boudry, by the way, is not Jewish. The fact that I agree with him, then, cannot be because he’s a fellow member of the “tribe.”
Finally, I am wondering what you would have done had you been in charge of the IDF after October 7. Would you have tried to wipe out Hamas, which has said it will re-enact Oct. 7 hundreds of times over again, or would you simply elminate a smaller number of them and then let them continue with their terrorism? Given that they were in tunnels under schools, hospitals, and highly integrated in the Gazan population, how would you have suggested that the IDF stop the threat of Hamas without the tragic side effects of killing noncombatants? If Hamas were spatially segregated from the Gazan population so that proper warfare could have been enacted, do you think Israel would still have tried to kill as many Gazan civilians as possible?
I do not think you’ve thought these issues over very carefully; it just seems that you think that too many Gazan civilians have been killed in order to stop the attacks of Hamas (which are continuing, by the way)? What would think would be a “proportionate” number.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement by Sam Harris, ““If the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace; if the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be genocide.”
I suggest that if you have a beef about the supposedly genocidal nature of the Israeli government and the IDF, you read Boudry’s article and answer it. But at his site, not mine.
Oh, and note that the quote you attribute to me, “High civilian casualties in urban warfare against an enemy that operates from within the civilian population do not establish that intent,” was not written by me; it is from Grok’s characterization of the International Genocide Convention.
My take: I think Paula starts off in the right place, i.e. empathy with and horror at the tremendous suffering of the Palestinian people.
She veers off the track when she assumes that this is entirely, or largely, Israel’s fault. Even if one does grant that some of the fault might be Israel’s — here one can legitimately debate some points — surely the fault lies also, if not more so, with Hamas (currently) as well as with the surrounding Arab states, Hizbollah, Fatah, etc. All these have used, and continue to use, the Palestinians as pawns in their decades long quest to prevent, and then destroy, any possibility of a Jewish state.
It is the absolute Arabic/Palestinian/Muslim refusal to accept that Jews might have a tiny little state of their own within the vast Muslim world that is the core of the problem. (Of course, some few Arabic states — Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain — have given up on this refusal, at least formally).
And one is, understandably, constantly reminded of how the Palestinians are treated in the West Bank and Gaza (very tough situation); scandalously, we only rarely hear about how they are treated in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Arabic/Muslim countries (horridly) vs. how they are treated in Israel proper (very well).
And also: You rightly note the atrocities of Oct. 7. You omit the ca. 20,000 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel over the 20 years since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (i.e. not counting those fired from Lebanon). Please name one state in the world that would have responded with such forbearance up until Oct. 7?
“ the atrocities committed on the 7th are not justification for the horror of what has been done”.
Of course not, the justification is that Hamas was holding and torturing 250 hostages. I find it very interesting that you forgot to mention that.
Wow, they found someone less deserving of the prize than Trump.
“Woke virtue-signallers are usually virtue-free in themselves.
From the Nobel Prize page: “international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. … It is an absolute necessity.”
No, it is not. International law is an affront to the sovereignty of a free people. Better to have ten rogue nations flout its pretty sentiments than to give it the enforcement teeth that could see a virtuous one hauled before its tribunals. Its development last century was largely an extension of colonialism and the Cold War, an effort to impose the wishes of the most powerful tribes of the world on others. Universalism is wonderful when one still controls the rules.
But the world has been decolonized, yet its former victims and others will claim they are victims of new “colonizers” still. Ancient hatreds, envy, and resentment wrap themselves in modern ideologies and contemporary legalist garb. That same international law will now be twisted and applied by the rogues against anyone too weak to resist or foolish enough to sacrifice their sovereignty and comply.
Fortunately, Israel is neither weak nor foolish. And for that, it is condemned and even more hated.
Navi Pillay? The committee must be smoking some of Alfred Nobel’s chemical concoctions.
Given this decision I am surprised that they didn’t give the Literature award to Jason Arday. In any case the Nobel Peace Prize has now lost whatever diminishing credibility it once may have had.
Given this decision I am surprised that they didn’t give the Literature award to Jason Arday.
Maybe they would have, if not for the fact that he’s already dead.
I thought the United States had taken the lead when it came to progressive identity politics. Little did I know that Europe was even worse.
The 2009 Peace Prize to President Barack Obama was really in anticipation of what he might have been able to accomplish—but, in the end, did not, for reasons connected to reality. Here is a classic reaction to that Peace Prize award, quoting Wiki:
“Dmitry Medvedev, then-president of Russia, said the award would encourage warmer U.S.–Russian relations, and he hoped it would “serve as an additional incentive” for both governments to foster a better “climate in world politics”. ” Medvedev’s more recent pronouncements illustrate a different “climate” at least in his country’s politics.
President Trump has also said that Nobel Prize has gone to the wrong person. He has suggested that he should have got at least 8.
He is in the process of reducing sanctions on Russian oil in the hope that the price of fuel in America will go down and mitigate the Republican losses in the upcoming elections. This will enable Putin to kill even more Ukranians.