South African advocate Lawrence Nowosenetz practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the United States. He has worked as a human rights and labor lawyer at the Legal Resources Centre, a public interest law firm, and as a labor arbitrator and mediator at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). A member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and Pretoria chairman, he has also served as an acting judge of the High Court, South Africa. Nowosenetz now lives in Tel Aviv, where he writes articles on law and anti-Israel activism in South Africa.
(Oct. 20, 2026 / JNS)
The Nobel Prize Committee has awarded South African-born Navanethem “Navi” Pillay the 2026 Peace Prize, citing her “efforts to promote peace and international law.” The committee emphasized Pillay’s “judicial rigor, personal integrity and considerable courage.” Other accolades using similar empty slogans and clichés have poured in from all quarters.
Perhaps the committee did not research deeply enough to reveal Pillay’s considerable lapses of judicial rigor and biased, unprofessional conduct. Her record before and during her involvement with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court is deeply troubling, revealing anti-Israel hatred as well as highly contentious and injudicious statements. Pillay has also associated herself with extreme organizations and persons, some sanctioned by the United States.
Pillay is strongly aligned with the ANC, South Africa’s dominant political party, and personally with Naledi Pandor, the former foreign minister under whom South Africa brought its “genocide” case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
As Secretary-General of the U.N. Durban Review Conference in 2009, Pillay exonerated the infamous U.N. Durban Conference of 2001, which collapsed into a shameful and vitriolic display of antisemitism. She scorned the Jewish groups sounding the alarm about antisemitism, calling them “lobby groups.”
Again and again, Pillay has ignored antisemitism. For example, she did not censure her U.N. colleague Miloon Kothari for a statement about Jewish control of social media, despite his later apology.
On May 31, 2010, while serving as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Pillay declared that “the Israeli government treats international law with perpetual disdain.” Never throughout her tenure as a human rights commissioner did Pillay employ such language against any other country—not even gross abusers like China, Russia, Iran, Syria or North Korea.
In 2011, Pillay officially criticized the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in Denmark. Former Foreign Minister of Denmark Stig Møller said that Pillay was not qualified to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, because, “When Denmark was attacked by Muslims over cartoons of Muhammad, Pillay refused to help. Her response was that we should introduce censorship.”
In 2013, Pillay co-organized a seminar with the Palestine Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which she attended in Khan Yunis. She interacted particularly with one Javer Wishah, an official of PCHR. In the 1980s, Wishah was the head of the Gaza military wing of the terrorist group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and had served 15 years’ imprisonment in Israel for terrorist activities. The PFLP was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States in 1997. In 2025, the PCHR was sanctioned by the United States.
Pillay has consistently singled out Israel for condemnation over alleged war crimes, human rights abuses and racism, and has been a consistent supporter of the Palestinian campaign to use the language and mechanisms of international law to delegitimize Israel as a criminal state. Her lack of detachment is clear to any reasonable person.
Yet Pillay was appointed as the chairperson of the U.N. International Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. The final report before her resignation was released in September 2025. At a press briefing, Pillay said: “The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a moral outrage and a legal emergency.”
The report confidently concluded: “The commission therefore finds that the Israeli authorities intended to kill as many Palestinians as possible through its military operations in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, and knew that the means and methods of warfare employed would cause mass deaths of Palestinians, including children.”
Pillay claimed to be unable to find any verifiable proof of sexual violence against Israeli women on Oct. 7, 2023.
No attempt was made to evaluate the precautions employed by the Israel Defense Forces, such as advance warnings, leaflets and even evacuations. Nor was the provision of tons of food aid and administration of polio vaccinations in Gaza considered as contraindications of genocidal intent. The report completely ignored the principle that civilian structures such as homes, schools, hospitals and mosques lose their protected status according to the law of war when used for military attacks, as Hamas has indeed done.
In a Times of Israel blog on Sept. 25, 2025, I described the 2025 Gaza report thus: “It is replete with poorly substantiated legal inferences of genocidal intent (dolus specialis) and distorted selective anti-Israel factual framing of the conflict with no attempt at objectivity.”
Recently, fellow retired commissioner Chris Sidoti warmly endorsed the choice of Pillay as a worthy Nobel recipient and praised her legal acumen, even though, in a televised debate in Melbourne on Oct. 9, he acknowledged that her inquiry relied on a low legal standard of proof.
This is unsurprising, as a fact-finding inquiry is not a court of law. However, less weight should be accorded to findings made on hearsay and speculation, particularly a grave conclusion such as genocide where dolus specialis (“special intent”) is a high evidentiary bar. This is reckless, not rigorous.
Sidoti argued that the inquiry relied on what a prudent and ordinary reasonable observer would conclude. Pillay is far from that kind of observer. For example, she claimed to be unable to find any verifiable proof of sexual violence against Israeli women on Oct. 7, 2023. This comes despite the plethora of evidence from the victims, eyewitnesses, GoPro video footage shot by the perpetrators themselves and forensic medical investigations.
UN Watch, the voice of conscience monitoring the United Nations, filed a recusal motion in 2022 against Pillay’s appointment to the U.N. Commission of Inquiry based on her documented history of anti-Israel bias. It was right to do so.
Impartiality is a cardinal principle of adjudication and fact-finding. It is set out as a requirement in Articles 3 and 25 of the U.N. Declaration on Fact-Finding. The legal maxim nemo iudex in sua causa means that no one should be a judge in his/her own cause. It is a cornerstone of natural justice. Pillay has made condemnation of Israel her personal cause.
The recusal application was ignored. A judicial officer of rigor and conscience would have recused oneself, even on the reasonable apprehension of bias according to South African law. Pillay should have been mindful of this principle.
In 2019, she became an ad hoc judge on the International Court of Justice in the genocide case of Gambia v. Myanmar. At the moment, judgment is reserved in this case. However, it is a precursor to the South African ICJ case against Israel, and the outcome is expected to influence the legal interpretation of the Genocide Convention.
This is worrisome because the legal argument used seeks to weaken the standard for accountability regarding genocide, which Pillay has already done in her report on the Gaza war.
Clearly, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Pillay is a stain on the rule of international law and justice.