Media365
On October 9, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to South African jurist Navanethem “Navi” Pillay for her “efforts to promote peace and international law”. A section of the international media and several critics have said that the award went to Pillay mainly “for hating Israel”. An opinion article in The Wall Street Journal titled “A Nobel Prize for Hating Israel”, described her career as “marked above all by hatred for Israel and the Jews who support it”. Israel’s most widely distributed newspaper, Israel Hayom described the award as “hypocrisy” and accused Navi Pillay of “redefining genocide to target Israel”. This framing was echoed by Trump, who stated he had “never heard of” Pillay, while Israel said that “the award legitimised anti-Israel hatred and prejudice”.
These reactions were a direct response to the conclusions of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, which Pillay had chaired. In September 2025, the Commission had concluded that Israeli authorities had committed four of the five acts of genocide defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza. The Commission specifically named Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant as having “incited the commission of genocide”. A subsequent report of a UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry under S Muralidhar was made public in June 2026. The report concluded that Palestinian children were deliberately targeted by Israeli security forces, constituting genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The accusations, however, engage more with political rhetoric than with legal nuances. Noted scholar and diplomat Richard Haass in his recent Substack column has also refuted the “genocide” charge against Israel, although he does hold Israel guilty of war crimes. His critique of the Nobel Committee’s decision is not so much intended to defend Israel as it is to question Pillay’s definition of genocide.
In November 2024, the ICC had issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on charges of war crimes and Israel’s appeal against the warrants were rejected. Under the Rome Statute, the 125 member states are legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu if he enters their territory. Since there is no head of state immunity under customary international law, the ICC verdict is binding on all the signatories. Despite the legal clarity, enforcement has been systematically hollowed out. This is where the outcry over the Peace Prize being awarded to Pillay connects to Israel’s impunity, which is also boosted by other factors.
First, the US has weaponised its power against the Court. On the day Pillay’s Nobel was announced, the US added the ICC itself to its Specially Designated Nationals list — a move that the ICC “strongly rejected”.
Second, the US has systematically shielded Israel at the UN Security Council. The US has vetoed 49 Security Council resolutions related to Israel. Since October 2023, the US has vetoed six separate UNSC resolutions that sought to halt Israel’s war on Gaza.
Third, several key states of the Rome Statute have refused to enforce the ICC warrant. Hungary, Argentina, and Poland have said they will not arrest Netanyahu. France and Italy have taken the middle ground, arguing that Netanyahu was immune as the head of a non-member state. The UK has maintained that visiting heads of government have “complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction”. These refusals directly contradict the binding ICC Appeals Chamber decision on head of state immunity.
Fourth, the legal process itself moves at snail’s pace. Israel submitted its counter-memorial to the genocide case in March 2026. The ICJ has set a deadline of November 22, 2027 for South Africa’s reply, and May 22, 2029 for Israel’s rejoinder. By the time the case reaches oral arguments, the facts on the ground would have substantially changed.
The campaign to de-legitimise the award to Pillay and Israel’s impunity are two sides of the same architecture. The legal findings — genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity — create a formal obligation on states to act. The ICC warrant creates a specific obligation to arrest. If these legal conclusions are accepted as valid, the enforcement architecture must be followed by the states.
The accusations against Pillay provide an escape hatch. By reframing the legal findings as the product of bias rather than evidence, it transforms the question from “is this legally sound?” to “is the accuser trustworthy?” This shift allows states to avoid the legal obligation without appearing to reject the law itself. The states are not refusing to enforce a valid warrant; they are declining to act based on a politically motivated accusation. The Nobel Peace Prize to Pillay has affirmed the jurist’s credibility. Israel’s response, US’s move and indifference of Rome Statute signatories are attempts to re-establish the framing of legal findings as illegitimate.
The result is a system in which international law produces findings but not consequences. The ICJ orders do not compel compliance. This is not an absence of international law — it is the systematic stripping of enforcement. The campaign against Pillay’s recognition does not defeat the legal findings on their merits; it makes their enforcement politically impossible. In the gap between those two positions, Israel’s impunity is constructed — not in the absence of law, but in the space where law is acknowledged and then refused on convenient grounds.
The writer is an Indian Army veteran who currently teaches at OP Jindal Global University, Sonepat, Haryana
