Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize a slap in the face to Israel and the US

The Nobel Committee sent a message in awarding the 2026 Peace Prize. It chose the rule of law over geopolitical convenience, accountability over impunity, and principle over power.

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article is available on Substack. 

When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that former International Criminal Court (ICC) judge Navi Pillay would receive the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, it did far more than honour a single jurist’s lifetime of work. It issued a moral verdict on the state of international law itself. It signaled that the Gaza genocide — as identified by the UN Commission of Inquiry Pillay chaired — is not merely a regional catastrophe but a global threat to peace. And it delivered a metaphorical slap in the face to those who have spent years undermining the ICC, attacking international legal institutions, and shielding Israel from accountability — namely Donald Trump, the US government, and Israel’s political leadership.

Pillay’s award is not just a recognition of her commitment to justice and international law, it is a reminder that the world’s most powerful states cannot indefinitely suppress the truth or escape the consequences of their criminal actions.

A laureate whose work confronts power

The Nobel Committee praised Pillay for her “exceptional courage and integrity” in advancing a global legal order capable of prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This was not diplomatic boilerplate. Pillay’s career has been defined by confronting entrenched power — from apartheid South Africa to the Rwandan genocide to Israel’s decades‑long occupation of Palestinian territory.

Her most recent and politically explosive work came as chair of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In 2025, the commission concluded that Israel is responsible for genocide in Gaza, citing four of the five acts listed under the Genocide Convention, including killing members of a protected group, inflicting serious bodily harm, and imposing conditions intended to bring about the group’s destruction.

Pillay herself emphasized that her final act before leaving the commission was delivering the report naming Israel’s actions as genocide. She expressed surprise that people praised her “courage,” asking why speaking the truth based on facts and law should require bravery. That question, which is simple, piercing, and devastating, underscores why her Nobel award matters more than other awards of recent years.

International law is under attack and we should be worried

The Nobel Committee made clear that its decision was not only about Pillay’s personal achievements but about defending the very architecture of international justice. Committee Chair Jorgen Watne Frydnes warned that international law is “under tremendous pressure” and its institutions “under attack.” Judges, he said, “guard the thin red line between order and chaos.”

This is not abstract rhetoric, but a direct response to the political reality that the UN, ICC, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) investigative bodies have been relentlessly targeted by the US and Israel whenever these institutions threaten to hold them accountable.  The US has imposed sanctions on the ICC, with senior government officials calling the court an “outlaw.” Israel has repeatedly attacked UN investigative bodies, dismissed genocide findings as “blood libels,” and denounced Pillay personally. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called her a “bigot” and accused the Nobel Committee of losing its “moral compass,” a laughable claim from a man who has shown he never had one.

By awarding Pillay the Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee rejected these attacks and reaffirmed the legitimacy of international law, showing the world that the campaign to discredit the ICC, smear UN investigators, and bury the truth about Gaza has failed — and that those who stand against accountability cannot escape the judgment of the global community.

Gaza genocide as a threat to world peace

The Nobel Committee’s decision implicitly acknowledges a reality that many governments have tried to deny, that the genocide in Gaza is not merely a humanitarian catastrophe but a profound destabilizing force in global politics. Pillay’s commission concluded that senior Israeli officials — including the president, prime minister, and former defense minister — had incited genocide, identifying multiple acts that meet the legal threshold under the Genocide Convention. This finding is not only a legal assessment, it is a warning about the consequences of allowing a state to commit mass atrocities with impunity.

We should all be aware that genocide is never a local crime, but a a rupture in the international system itself. It is a tearing of the legal and moral fabric that holds global order together. It erodes norms that prevent conflict, fuels radicalization and extremism, and destabilizes entire regions. When powerful states enable, excuse, or actively support genocide, they do more than betray their professed values, they undermine the foundations of global order and world peace. They signal to other governments that international law is optional, that mass violence can be justified, and that accountability is something that only applies to the weak.

The Nobel Committee’s press release underscored this point with unusual clarity, stressing that international law is “an absolute necessity” in a world facing existential challenges and rising conflict. The implication is unmistakable — ignoring or minimizing the genocide in Gaza does not merely endanger Palestinians, it threatens the stability of the international order itself. A world that tolerates genocide is a world that invites further atrocities, accelerates geopolitical fragmentation, and weakens the institutions designed to prevent global conflict. By elevating Pillay, the committee is effectively declaring that the path to peace runs through accountability, and the refusal to confront Israel’s actions in Gaza is a direct threat to that peace.

A rejection of Trump’s anti‑ICC crusade

In his response to the award announcement Trump’s response was predictable, stating that he should have received the Nobel Peace Prize. His grievance‑laden response was met with Pillay’s dry humour when she quipped that she might share the prize with him “if you clap a little bit more,” a remark that simultaneously punctured Trump’s self‑aggrandizement and underscored the absurdity of his claim to a peace legacy. Her joke was light, but the political symbolism behind the moment was anything but.

Because the deeper meaning of the Nobel Committee’s decision goes far beyond Trump’s wounded ego.

Trump’s administration waged one of the most aggressive campaigns in modern history against the International Criminal Court. He sanctioned ICC officials, threatened prosecutors, and sought to block investigations into US war crimes in Afghanistan and Israeli crimes in Palestine. His government treated the ICC not as an institution of justice but as an enemy to be neutralized. In that context, the Nobel Committee’s choice to honour a former ICC judge — one who has consistently defended the court’s independence and insisted on accountability for powerful states — is a direct and unmistakable repudiation of Trump’s efforts to dismantle international legal mechanisms.

It is also a rejection of the broader US policy of shielding Israel from scrutiny, a policy that has enabled the Gaza genocide by ensuring Israel faces no meaningful consequences for its actions. For decades, successive American administrations have used diplomatic pressure, veto power, and political intimidation to block investigations, suppress UN reports, and delegitimize any attempt to hold Israel accountable. This patter has intensified during Trump’s time in office but it predates his administrations.

By awarding Pillay the Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee effectively declared that this era of impunity must end. It signaled that the world sees through the political theatre, understands the stakes, and refuses to accept a global order in which international law does not apply to the most powerful nations in the world. The prize is not just a celebration of Pillay’s work in the cause of justice. It is also a rebuke to those who have tried to bury the truth, undermine the ICC, and protect Israel from facing justice for its genocidal actions in Gaza.

A rejection of Israel’s campaign against accountability

Israel’s reaction to Pillay’s award was furious. Its foreign ministry called the decision a “grotesque exploitation” and compared international reactions to “Goebbels’s applause from hell.” Netanyahu accused Pillay of inventing “blood libels.”

Israel’s reaction to Pillay’s award was immediate and predictable. Its foreign ministry denounced the Nobel Committee’s decision as a “grotesque exploitation,” even going so far as to compare international praise for Pillay to “applause from hell” by Joseph Goebbels—Hitler’s Nazi propaganda minister.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu escalated the rhetoric further, accusing Pillay of fabricating “blood libels” — a phrase deliberately chosen for its historical weight and its role in Israel’s longstanding strategy of portraying any criticism of its actions as inherently malicious and antisemitic. These attacks were part of a well‑rehearsed and frequently repeated political script designed to discredit anyone who documents Israel’s criminal actions and violations of international law, and they attacks are not merely rhetorical.

They reflect a decades‑long pattern in which Israel responds to legal scrutiny not with evidence or engagement but with smear campaigns, delegitimization, political intimidation, and propaganda. Whether directed at UN rapporteurs, human rights organizations, ICC prosecutors, or genocide scholars, Israel’s strategy has been consistent — attack the messenger to bury the message. Pillay’s award disrupts that strategy. It exposes the hollowness of Israel’s accusations and demonstrates that the world is no longer willing to accept its reflexive dismissal of every investigation as biased or hateful. The Nobel Committee’s decision affirms that the genocide findings are serious, credible, and grounded in international law — and that no amount of political pressure or rhetorical escalation can erase the documented reality of Israeli atrocities being committed in Gaza.

By elevating Pillay, the Nobel Committee has effectively insulated her work from Israel’s attempts to discredit it. It has placed her findings within the moral authority of the Nobel tradition, making it far more difficult for Israel to dismiss the genocide determination as fringe or politically motivated. The award signals that the global community recognizes the gravity of the crimes documented in Gaza and refuses to be intimidated by Israel’s efforts to silence accountability. In doing so, it underscores the message that when a state responds to genocide findings with insults rather than evidence, it reveals more about its own culpability than about the integrity of those who investigate it.

The ICC is under siege by the US and Israel

Pillay’s career has been intertwined with the ICC and other international tribunals. She served as a judge at the ICC, presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and has continued to work as an ad hoc judge at the ICJ. Her Nobel Prize is therefore also a tribute to the ICC itself — an institution under unprecedented political attack by the US and Israel. As Pillay noted in her Nobel interview, the award is “huge recognition” for all those who work quietly to uphold international law, especially “in the climate of the ICC being under threat.”

The Nobel Committee has effectively declared that defending the ICC is essential to defending peace. Its decision is a challenge to states that claim to support international law but hesitate when powerful allies violate it — Canada being one of many that fall into that category. UN Secretary‑General António Guterres said the award is “a tribute to all those working to uphold and defend international law.” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa praised Pillay’s “progressive contributions” to peace and human dignity.

These statements underscore a widening and increasingly consequential divide in global politics between states that believe international law must apply universally, and those that behave as though they stand above it — treating the law not as a binding framework for all nations, but as a weapon to wield against adversaries while shielding themselves and their allies from scrutiny. This divide is no longer theoretical. It is shaping the future of global governance, determining which institutions survive, and defining whether the international system retains any credibility at all.

The Nobel Committee has made clear which side it is on. In choosing Navi Pillay as the 2026 laureate, it chose the rule of law over geopolitical convenience, accountability over impunity, and principle over power. By awarding the prize to a jurist who has confronted states accused of genocide — including Israel — and defended the independence of the ICC, the committee did more than honour her work. It sent a message to the international community that the integrity of international law is inseparable from global peace and stability.

It also affirmed the genocide findings in Gaza as credible and urgent; reasserted the ICC’s indispensable role in upholding international law; rejected US and Israeli efforts to undermine international justice; signaled that the Gaza genocide threatens global peace; and encouraged nations committed to international law to stand firm.

This was not a neutral or apolitical decision. It was a moral intervention — a reminder that peace cannot exist without justice, and justice cannot exist without accountability. In honouring Pillay, the Nobel Committee has reminded the world that silence in the face of genocide is complicity. And it has issued a warning — the future of world peace depends on defending the institutions that protect humanity from its darkest impulses.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The West’s performative condemnation of Israel’s crimes is another sign of the death of the international order

Western hypocrisy exposed the racial, geopolitical, and ideological biases behind the so called “international rules based order” which has allowed Israel to commit horrific crimes with impunity.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

The joint statement issued on August 20, 2026, by the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom condemning Israel’s decision to publish construction tenders for a new settlement project is yet another example of Western performativity masquerading as moral outrage. It is a carefully calibrated piece of public relations designed to signal “concern” while ensuring that nothing changes on the ground. After decades of Israeli settlement expansion, apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing, and — since October 2023 — the genocide in Gaza, this statement is not only hollow; it is an indictment of Western complicity.

The statement declares that Israel’s decision is “unacceptable,” that settlements are “illegal,” and that the project threatens the “territorial contiguity” of the West Bank — something which is already the case. It notes “unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians” and warns domestic businesses in each country which might submit proposals to be part of the project of “legal and reputational consequences.” And yet, despite the gravity of these words, the governments issuing them have done nothing — absolutely nothing — to penalize Israel politically, economically, or militarily for its decades-long criminality. They have watched Israel build hundreds of thousands of Jewish‑only housing units, now home to more than 750,000 settlers, many of whom have terrorized Palestinians with impunity by stealing land, destroying homes, burning orchards, killing livestock, and murdering unarmed civilians.

This is not new. Western governments have perfected the art of expressing “grave concern” while enabling Israel’s crimes through military aid, diplomatic protection, and economic partnerships. Their statements are not expressions of moral courage, they are examples of geopolitical cowardice.

The collapse of Western credibility

Since October 2023, Israel has carried out what dozens of international legal bodies, human rights organizations, genocide scholars, and even former Israeli officials have explicitly called genocide. This is not rhetorical exaggeration. It is a legal and scholarly determination made by: the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry; the UN Special Committee; the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Doctors Without Borders; Oxfam; Save the Children; the International Federation of Human Rights; the International Association of Genocide Scholars; Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, and Shmuel Lederman; as well as the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, among others.

When genocide is unfolding in real time, and when the perpetrators are openly declaring their intent to destroy a people, statements like the August 20 joint communiqué are inadequate and laughable.

Settler violence enabled by the Israeli state

The joint statement acknowledges “unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians.” This is an understatement. Settler violence is not episodic, it is systemic, organized, and often coordinated with the Israeli military. Human Rights Watch has documented settlers burning homes, destroying olive groves, killing livestock, and attacking Palestinian villages with firearms. Amnesty International has reported multiple incidents where settlers murdered Palestinians, including the killing of 19‑year‑old Qusai Matan in 2023 and the torching of homes in Turmus Ayya. B’Tselem has recorded settlers shooting unarmed Palestinians, burning orchards, and carrying out pogroms in towns like Huwara.

These crimes are not committed by “extremists.” They are committed by settlers who enjoy full legal, military, and political protection from the Israeli state. And Western governments know this. They have known it for decades. Yet they have done nothing to stop it.

Western complicity has enabled decades of Israeli crimes

The response to the Israeli announcement is part of a long pattern of Western governments issuing sternly worded condemnations while continuing to arm, fund, and diplomatically shield Israel. Western apathy is not passive—it is active complicity.

Consider the facts: Canada continues to export weapons and components to Israel, even as Israel commits genocide; the United States provides billions in military aid annually, including weapons used in Gaza; the UK, Germany, Italy, and France maintain defense contracts and intelligence cooperation with Israel; the EU refuses to suspend its Association Agreement with Israel, despite clear violations of human rights clauses; and no Western government has imposed sanctions on Israel for settlement construction, apartheid policies, or genocide.

These governments and their western allies have watched Israel violate: UN Security Council resolutions; the Fourth Geneva Convention; the Hague Conventions; the Genocide Convention; and the UN Charter, repeatedly for decades. And their response has been to issue statements like the one on August 20 — statements that are designed to create the illusion of action while ensuring that nothing changes.

The galling hypocrisy of the West

The most galling aspect of this performative outrage is the stark contrast with the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within days of that attack, Western governments unleashed sweeping sanctions, froze assets, expelled diplomats, mobilized international institutions, and poured massive military aid into Ukraine. They acted decisively and forcefully — and they were right to do so.

But when Israel commits genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and apartheid, those same governments retreat into the familiar language of “grave concern” while continuing business as usual. No sanctions. No arms embargoes. No diplomatic isolation. No meaningful consequences of any kind.

This hypocrisy exposes the racial, geopolitical, and ideological biases at the core of the so‑called “international rules‑based order.” The West’s selective application of international law has shattered its credibility and effectively destroyed the post‑World War II international system. And it is not Russia or China that killed it. It is Western governments — led by the United States — through their unwavering complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Public relations, not policy

The August 20 statement is a textbook example of Western PR. It contains all the familiar elements: condemnation of settlement expansion; affirmation of international law; expressions of concern about violence; calls for Israel to “retract” its plans; warnings to domestic businesses; and the tired refrain of their commitment to a “two‑state solution.” But it lacks the only thing that matters, which is a commitment to taking action against Israel.

There is no threat of sanctions, suspension of arms sales, diplomatic consequences or economic penalties. There is also no mention of international legal action, support for ICC or ICJ prosecutions, or mention of any consequences.

Israel knows this and has known it for decades. That is why it continues its violations of every international law, convention or treaty to which it is a party.  It knows that the West will do nothing.

The only solution is coercive international action

If Western governments are unwilling to take meaningful action against a state that has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the international laws that bind all nations — if they refuse to stop the commission of war crimes and genocide through economic sanctions, arms embargoes, diplomatic isolation, and yes, if necessary, military intervention — then their statements expressing outrage are worthless. Words without consequences are not diplomacy, they are complicity.

Unless the world confronts Israel with real coercive force, the coming decades will descend into international anarchy. Other states with territorial ambitions or internal ethnic hierarchies will look to Israel as a model for how to behave toward their neighbours or toward minorities under their control. They will violate international law, commit atrocities, ignore UN resolutions, and rely on international paralysis to shield them from accountability. The international order cannot survive if genocide is tolerated. And right now, it is being tolerated openly, brazenly, and with full knowledge of those nations that have the power to stop it.

The joint statement is not a sign of moral leadership. It is a sign of moral collapse — the collapse of Western credibility, the collapse of the post‑war legal order, and the collapse of any claim these governments have to defending human rights or international law. It is the diplomatic equivalent of watching a house burn and issuing a press release about the importance of fire safety.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Israel’s war in Lebanon is another example of the criminal impunity of a rogue, terrorist state

Israel’s actions have destabilized Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq. They have inflamed regional tensions, fuelled extremism, and undermined diplomatic efforts.  

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

While the genocide in Gaza continues unabated Israeli leaders have now expanded their war crimes regime to Lebanon, where the 2026 invasion is not an aberration, not a sudden eruption of violence, and certainly not a defensive reflex. It is the latest chapter in a decades‑long pattern of criminal impunity—an extension of the same tactics, doctrines, and policies that have devastated Gaza. What is unfolding today in southern Lebanon is not merely a “spillover” from Gaza or a confrontation with Hezbollah. It is the exportation of the Gaza model of military aggression—the systematic destruction, mass displacement, territorial engineering, and steady normalization of Israel’s annexationist ambitions that have animated its leaders’ strategic thinking for decades.

Since the beginning of the Israeli invasion Lebanese authorities have reported more than 4,300 killed and over 12,000 wounded, with over one million displaced—roughly one‑fifth of the country forced from their homes. Israel has conducted thousands of airstrikes, bulldozed entire villages, bombed the suburbs of Beirut, and expanded operations far beyond its self‑declared “Yellow Line,” pushing up to ten kilometers into Lebanese territory. These are not temporary incursions, and this has been confirmed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in conversations with Israeli soldiers. They are in effect the creation of “facts on the ground,” the same methodical approach Israel has used for decades in the West Bank to transform an illegal occupation into a permanent presence.

The Gaza model exported

Israel’s military leaders have openly described their Lebanon campaign as a replication of tactics used in the Gaza genocide. Defence Minister Israel Katz referenced the “Rafah and Beit Hanoun model,” promising to demolish homes, flatten neighborhoods, and prevent civilian returns until Israel’s objectives are met. Soldiers have told reporters they are “operating exactly as we do in Gaza,” with daily destruction quotas and target lists.

Satellite imagery confirms the scale of devastation. Villages such as Bint Jbeil, Ayta al‑Shaab, and Khiam have been razed through controlled demolitions and bulldozing of buildings, mirroring Gaza’s obliterated districts. Additionally, Israel has struck civilian infrastructure—bridges over the Litani River, water facilities near the Qaraoun Dam, hospitals, schools, mosques, and farmland—all considered war crimes under international law. Furthermore, reported use of white phosphorus against civilian targets—already documented extensively in Gaza—have emerged again in Lebanon.  Another instance of Israel committing a war crime.

These actions are neither counterterrorism nor acts of self-defence. They are collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and territorial reconfiguration intended to support long-term occupation. It is the Gaza doctrine applied against a sovereign state.

A historical pattern of territorial ambition

While Israel’s defenders insist that these operations are purely defensive, aimed at neutralizing Hezbollah, the scale, the systematic razing of villages, the infrastructure destruction, and the establishment of a de facto occupied buffer zone suggest something far more ambitious, demographic engineering with the intent of effectively annexing territory.

This ambition is not new. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978, again in 1982, and occupied southern Lebanon until 2000. It launched a massive war in 2006, destroying swaths of the country. Each time, Israeli leaders spoke of “security zones,” “buffer areas,” and “temporary measures.” Each time, those measures hardened into long‑term territorial claims.

These actions align with a broader ideological project often referred to as “Greater Israel”— a maximalist vision proposed by Zionism’s founder Theodor Herzl, rooted in biblical nationalism and embraced by elements of Israel’s political and religious right. This project imagines Israeli control stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, and from Turkey to northern Saudi Arabia. While not official state policy, its influence is unmistakable in settlement expansion, annexation rhetoric, and repeated military incursions into neighboring states.

Lebanon, characterized by political fragmentation, deep economic crisis, a weak military and the overwhelming impact of incessant and highly destructive attacks by Israel, is uniquely vulnerable to such ambitions. Israel’s current operations—creating cleared zones, establishing military outposts, and preventing civilians from returning to their homes and properties—mirror the early stages of territorial absorption seen in the West Bank. The logic is clear. Israel weakens the state, depopulates strategic areas, and normalizes Israeli presence, all in violation of international law.

Crimes under international law

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment, the destruction of civilian property and infrastructure, and the forcible transfer of populations—precisely the kinds of actions Israel has carried out in Lebanon. The Rome Statute defines war crimes as intentional attacks on civilians and civilian objects, and crimes against humanity as widespread or systematic assaults on civilian populations. Israel’s conduct in Lebanon falls squarely within these prohibitions.

The mass displacement of over one million people, the razing of villages, the destruction of essential infrastructure, and the establishment of a de facto occupation zone constitute grave breaches of international law. Additionally, UN experts and human rights organizations have warned of ethnic cleansing and potential crimes against humanity.  These warnings echo those issued during Israel’s Gaza campaign, where the International Court of Justice found a “plausible risk of genocide” and ordered provisional measures to prevent further atrocities. Enabled by its Western allies, the US in particular, Israel ignored them.

US backing fuels Israeli impunity

Israel’s ability to commit these crimes repeatedly—and expand them into new theaters—rests on one foundation: unconditional US support.

The United States provides billions in military aid annually, vetoes UN resolutions calling for ceasefires or accountability, and shields Israel from sanctions or international prosecution. This support persists regardless of the severity of Israeli crimes. It persisted through the flattening of Gaza, the mass murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians, and the destruction of hospitals, schools, and refugee camps, and it now continues with Israeli crimes in Lebanon.

The contrast with Western responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is staggering. Russia’s aggression triggered sweeping sanctions, diplomatic isolation, ICC arrest warrants, and massive military support for Ukraine. Israel’s aggression in Gaza triggered statements of “concern” and “alarm” followed by expedited weapons shipments. This double standard is not merely hypocrisy—it is blatant complicity. Under international law, states that knowingly provide material support enabling war crimes share responsibility for those crimes.

Israel as the region’s most destabilizing force

Israel’s defenders claim that as the only “democracy” in the Middle-East it is a stabilizing force in a volatile region. However, decades of evidence suggests the opposite.

Israel has launched major wars or invasions against Lebanon (1978, 1982, 1996, 2006, 2026), Gaza (2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2023–26), and repeatedly escalated tensions with Syria and Iran. It maintains an apartheid system in the West Bank, enforces a siege on Gaza, and conducts regular strikes across the region.  No other Middle Eastern state has initiated as many cross‑border conflicts, displaced as many civilians, or destroyed as much infrastructure in neighboring countries. No other state has repeatedly violated international law with such impunity, and yet the world has done nothing to stop them.

Israel’s actions have destabilized Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq. They have inflamed regional tensions, fuelled extremism, and undermined diplomatic efforts. And because Israel can influence US military policy—through lobbying, intelligence partnerships, and political pressure—it can and has dragged the world’s most powerful military into regional escalations.

A state that repeatedly violates international law, destabilizes its neighbors, and wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy is not merely a regional threat. It is a potential threat to world peace.

The biker gang analogy

If a biker gang rolled into a town, torched buildings, murdered residents, and declared parts of the territory off‑limits, the full weight of law enforcement would descend. No appeals to “self‑defence” against adversaries would excuse systematic destruction.

Yet when Israel does the same—flattening villages, displacing millions, occupying foreign soil—the international response has been muted, and there has been no effort to hold its leaders accountable. This selective enforcement of law reveals the moral bankruptcy of the so‑called international “rules‑based order” which Western nations so often invoke against their adversaries

Israel’s war in Lebanon is not an isolated conflict. It is part of a decades‑long pattern of aggression, territorial ambition, and criminal impunity. Without accountability—through sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC prosecutions, and diplomatic pressure—the cycle is bound to continue.

The world cannot remain passive in the face of Israeli exceptionalism. The credibility of international law, the stability of the Middle East, and even the prospects for global peace depend on ending this impunity and holding Israel’s leaders fully accountable.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.   

Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau: The morally bankrupt leaders who ignored the Gaza genocide

Trudeau's and Carney's refusal to acknowledge that genocide is taking place in Gaza is factually indefensible and politically grotesque.  

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared in mid-May that the treatment of civilians aboard the Sumud Flotilla to Gaza—kidnapped in international waters by Israeli forces—was “abominable”, he revealed far more about his government than he intended. His statement was meant to project moral outrage, to signal that Canada still possesses a moral compass. Instead, it exposed a government that has lost its ethical bearings entirely. Because if Carney truly believed that the abuse of civilians was “abominable,” he would have said so long before a video of Itamar Ben‑Gvir taunting bound activists forced his hand.

But Carney did not, and the reason is simple. Carney has no moral compass, especially when it comes to how Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs are treated, whether by a foreign government or by his own administration in Canada.

Mark Carney only entered politics in early 2025, after Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as Liberal leader. Before that, Carney spent decades in elite financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England—where he cultivated a reputation for technocratic competence and global statesmanship. Yet in all those years, through Israel’s decades-long brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, its repeated assaults on the Gaza Strip, and finally its ongoing genocide, Carney never made a public comment. Not a word about the siege. Not a word about the occupation. Not a word about apartheid. Not a word about the mass killing of Palestinians. And this is for the most part understandable given the trajectory of his career.

However, his silence was not accidental, but it was revealing. It was the silence of a man who had never needed to confront the consequences of Western power, who had never needed to reckon with the violence that Western powers inflicted on the world’s most vulnerable, under the guise of maintaining an “international rules based order.” And so when he entered politics, his silence became a part of Canadian government policy.

Trudeau’s legacy of weakness and denial

However, this wasn’t new policy. Carney inherited this moral vacuum from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose own record on Israel and Palestine was defined by weakness, evasion, and denial. Trudeau made occasional statements expressing “concern” about Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, but these were always carefully calibrated to avoid offending Israel or the US.  Ultimately they were meaningless because he condemned very little of Israel’s criminal acts, recognized even less, and took no action to uphold international law or hold Israel accountable.

And at the end of his prime ministership, Trudeau finally said the quiet part out loud—he declared himself to be a Zionist. With that admission, everything became clear. His refusal to condemn Israel’s actions was not diplomatic caution, it was ideological alignment. His refusal to recognize genocide was not uncertainty, it was political loyalty to a foreign state. His government’s unwavering support for Israel, even as the death toll in Gaza climbed into the tens of thousands, was not a lack of courage, it was a deliberate choice and admission that Trudeau was an anti-Palestinian racist.

When Carney became prime minister he simply continued Trudeau’s policy of denial, complicity, and moral collapse.

Choosing not to see genocide in Gaza

Since it started both Trudeau and Carney refused to acknowledge that genocide was taking place in Gaza.  This denial is not only factually indefensible, it is politically grotesque. Because the list of institutions, experts, and humanitarian organizations that have declared Israel’s assault on Gaza’s population as genocidal is unprecedented in modern history.

Among the organizations and individuals recognizing that Israel is committing the crime of genocide as defined under Genocide Convention are:

• the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry;
• the UN Special Committee;
• the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;
• the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories;
• the former UN Humanitarian Chief;
• Amnesty International;
• Human Rights Watch;
• Israeli human rights group B’Tselem;
• Physicians for Human Rights Israel;
• Doctors Without Borders;
• Oxfam;
• Save the Children;
• Action Aid;
• Action on Armed Violence;
• the International Federation of Human Rights;
• the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS);
• Melanie O’Brien, president of the IAGS;
• Dirk Moses, editor of the Journal of Genocide Research;
• Martin Shaw, author of What Is Genocide?;
• Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars: Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, Shmuel Lederman;
• the Norwegian Refugee Council;
• the Danish Refugee Council;
• Refugees International;
• the International Rescue Committee;
• Moshe Yaalon, former head of Israel’s military;
• Amiram Levin, former deputy head of Mossad;
• Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel; and
• the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

This list is not merely long—it is overwhelming. It represents the broadest consensus on genocide since Rwanda. Yet Canada, a nation that claims to champion human rights, has rejected all of it.

Canada is violating its international legal obligations

Under the Genocide Convention, Canada is obligated not only to prevent genocide but to punish those who participate in it. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Canada must act to stop grave breaches, including collective punishment, targeting civilians, and starvation as a method of warfare. Under the UN Charter, Canada must uphold international peace and security and oppose violations of international humanitarian law.

Instead, Canada continues to:

• Sell weapons and weapons components to Israel;
• Provide diplomatic cover for Israel;
• Refuse to sanction Israeli officials responsible for mass atrocities;
• Reject international legal findings of genocide; and
• Attack Canadian human rights advocates who speak out.

This is not neutrality. It is complicity.

Carney’s Hypocrisy Is Impossible to Ignore

Carney’s condemnation of Ben‑Gvir was not wrong. Ben‑Gvir is a racist extremist who celebrated his birthday with a cake emblazoned with a noose, who raised a champagne glass when the Knesset advanced a death‑penalty bill that applies only to Palestinians, and who has repeatedly called for the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. But Carney’s selective outrage is revealing. Ben‑Gvir is not an outlier; he is the distilled expression of a much wider system of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocidal violence in Israeli society — a society where a 2025 poll showed that 47% of Jewish Israelis supported the Gaza genocide. Singling him out for sanctions while continuing to arm the state he serves is not moral leadership. It is political posturing, a gesture designed to look principled while avoiding the far more consequential act of holding Israel itself accountable.

If Carney truly believed Ben‑Gvir’s actions were “unacceptable,” he would sanction the entire Israeli government and military leadership. He would halt all weapons exports immediately. He would prosecute Canadians who have joined the Israeli military and participated in war crimes. He would recognize the genocide that the rest of the world has already named.

He has done none of these things.

Historically, Canada avoided pursuing war criminals

There is a myth in Canada that the country has a proud and robust history of prosecuting war criminals. It is a comforting story, one that allows Canadians to imagine themselves as steadfast defenders of human rights and international justice. But the moment this narrative is examined with even minimal scrutiny, it collapses. In truth, Canada has not made much effort to hunt down war criminals since World War Two, and its record is defined far more by avoidance, delay, and half‑measures than by genuine accountability.

For decades, Canada preferred to look away rather than confront perpetrators of atrocity, just as it is doing with Israel. Instead of launching serious investigations, pursuing criminal trials, or building the legal capacity to prosecute genocidal criminals, Canada has relied on bureaucratic tools—denaturalization and deportation—that allow the government to quietly remove individuals without ever proving guilt in court. These measures create the appearance of action while avoiding actual prosecution. Far from being a global leader in accountability, Canada’s war‑crimes record is a story of institutional reluctance, political timidity, and systemic inertia. It is a record that reveals a country far more committed to protecting its own political convenience than to upholding the principles of international law it claims to champion.

Following the Second World War Canada prosecuted a small number of Nazi war criminals immediately afterwards—almost all of them POWs already in Canadian custody. After 1948, however, Canada entered a 30‑year period of complete inactivity. During the 1950s through the 1980s, hundreds of suspected Nazi collaborators entered Canada, yet the government made no serious attempt to locate, investigate, or criminally prosecute them.

The 1985 Deschênes Commission confirmed what survivors and human‑rights advocates had long known: Canada had never meaningfully prosecuted Nazi war criminals domestically, despite ample evidence and decades of opportunity. The few criminal trials attempted in the 1990s—including the high‑profile case of Imre Finta—ended in acquittals, after which Canada effectively abandoned domestic prosecution altogether.

The rare exception of Rwandan génocidaires

Canada’s record of domestic war‑crimes prosecution is remarkably thin, and its only true success stands out precisely because it is so rare. The single case in which Canada managed to secure a conviction under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act was the prosecution of Désiré Munyaneza, a Rwandan génocidaire found guilty in 2009. His conviction was historic: the first time Canada used the principle of universal jurisdiction to try an individual for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed abroad. Munyaneza’s trial demonstrated that Canada could hold perpetrators of mass atrocity accountable when it chose to invest the political will, legal expertise, and prosecutorial resources required.

But Munyaneza’s case was the exception, not the beginning of a sustained effort. The only other attempt at a domestic war‑crimes trial under the same legislation—Jacques Mungwarere—ended in acquittal in 2013. After that, Canada effectively retreated from the field. No further domestic prosecutions followed, and no institutional momentum emerged to build on the precedent set. Instead of developing a robust system capable of confronting atrocity, Canada returned to its longstanding reliance on administrative measures.  The result is a war‑crimes record defined not by a legacy of accountability, but by one conviction surrounded by decades of institutional reluctance.

Canada’s support for Israel is built on lies

For decades, Canadian governments have insisted that Canada is a defender of human rights, a champion of international law, and a guardian of the rules‑based order. But these claims collapse under the weight of scrutiny, and certainly as we witness Canada’s lack of action around the Gaza genocide.

Canada cannot claim to defend human rights while arming a genocidal state. Canada cannot claim to uphold international law while ignoring the world’s legal findings. Canada cannot claim to support peace while enabling mass slaughter.

The Carney government’s position is not simply hypocritical—it is morally bankrupt, as was that of Justin Trudeau’s government

What is truly “unacceptable”

When he saw the video of Israeli minister Ben-Gvir taunting the imprisoned activists from the Sumud Flotilla he used the word “unacceptable” in reaction to what he saw. But what is truly unacceptable is Canada’s complicity. What is unacceptable is the refusal to name genocide. What is unacceptable is the sale of Canadian weapons to a state committing mass atrocities. What is unacceptable is the betrayal of international law. What is unacceptable is the dehumanization of Palestinians through complicity.

Carney’s government has failed the most basic test of moral leadership—the ability to recognize human suffering and act to stop it. Instead, Canada has become a bystander to genocide, and worse, an enabler of the crime of crimes.

History will not forget this moment. And it will not forgive those who chose silence, denial, and complicity over justice.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.