Two months after the United Nations (UN) Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded that a genocide was underway in Gaza, little has changed. Civilian deaths continue to mount, the entry of aid is still conditional, and very few states have severed ties with Israel.

The dire situation in Gaza reflects a wider failure by the international community to intervene in ongoing conflicts elsewhere. The 16 September 2025 report should have had wider-reaching implications for international justice and conflict situations in Africa, including Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Yet it was overshadowed by widening geopolitical rifts that continue to stymie coherent multilateral action. The October ceasefire agreed by Israel and Hamas and brokered by the United States has also shifted the focus of global powers and many commentators away from the nature of Israel’s violence or the need for accountability.

The UN commission found that Israel had committed four out of the five genocidal acts defined in the 1948 Genocide Convention. These were killing members belonging to a group, inflicting severe bodily/mental harm, creating conditions that threaten the group’s continued survival, and interfering with the group’s capacity to reproduce.

In the report, the commission urged Israel to end its military assault on Gaza, guarantee unfettered humanitarian access to Gaza, and implement measures designed to prevent further acts of genocide. It also reiterated states’ responsibilities under international law, which requires the suspension of all military, financial and political support that would implicate them in a plausible genocide.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the report as ‘fake,’ accused the commission’s members of being antisemitic proxies for Hamas, and further called for the commission to be dismantled. The ministry made no substantive comment on the report’s damning findings.

This despite a chorus of human rights organisations (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, for example), genocide scholars (including Israeli academics), and experts such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, independently concluding that a genocide is underway in Gaza.

The report is a result of a series of factual inquiries carried out by the Commission since 7 October 2023. The commission focused on alleged violations of international law across Israel and Palestine. Its previous reports established that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed in Palestine.

The commission derives its mandate from the UN Human Rights Council and is limited to gathering evidence, establishing facts and making recommendations. Its reports are not binding on member states, but its findings support the investigative work of international courts.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has routinely drawn from the commission’s work in recent decisions, including the two genocide-related cases brought by African countries: South Africa against Israel, and The Gambia against Myanmar.

The report’s findings did not persuade Israel to change tack. In fact, the Israeli military launched a fresh ground offensive in Gaza City on the same day that the report was released. The US-led ceasefire on 13 October may have decreased the death toll, but it has not stopped the war.

The commission’s report will undoubtedly add an important layer of authoritative evidence to South Africa’s case at the ICJ, as well as the ongoing investigation into individual responsibility for the war crimes committed in Gaza. This case is now supported by 14 countries, three of which are from Africa. They are Libya, the Comoros and Egypt.

The commission’s report presents a crossroads for state parties to the Genocide Convention, especially those who have been neutral, denied that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to a genocide, or supported Israel since October 2023.

African responses the report have not been uniform – reflecting an uneasy tension between geopolitical calculations and solidarity with Palestine. In addition to those that have joined South Africa’s ICJ case, Namibia, Algeria and Senegal have taken the strongest stance with public statements denouncing Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocidal.

A few other states broadly call for the de-escalation of hostilities without assigning blame. These include Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Kenya.

For its part, the European response has remained fairly muted, save for a few outliers. Slovenia imposed a complete weapons embargo on Israel, declared two far-right Israeli ministers personae non gratae, and issued a travel ban on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in August. Spain followed suit and imposed a ban on arms sales to Israel in September.

While the report’s impact is still limited, overall it provided justification for moves to isolate Israel politically, economically, and culturally. This was seen most starkly in the European Union’s 17 September proposal to sanction Israel; the diplomatic walkout during Netanyahu’s speech a week later at the UN General Assembly; and growing calls to exclude Israel from international football.

These moves are similar to the isolation of South Africa in the 1980s that, together with comprehensive economic sanctions, eventually led to the collapse of apartheid.

Beyond state responses, the report’s findings should serve as a lens through which African countries sharpen their intervention in some of the crises that stem from situations of mass atrocity on the continent.

To affirm their commitment to international justice, African countries must apply the findings of UN bodies in comparable situations of violence – be it in Sudan, the DRC or elsewhere on the continent.  

The law may be slow, but the pursuit of accountability is sure to follow in due course.

Written by Xhanti Mhlambiso, Researcher, Rule of Law, Special Projects, ISS Pretoria