Latest UN Report On Israel Occupied Territories Exposes The Ruthlessness Of Atrocities

Every war leaves behind shattered cities, broken societies and grieving families. But some wars destroy something less visible yet infinitely more consequential: faith in the institutions created to prevent humanity from repeating history’s darkest chapters. The latest report of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is therefore more than another meticulous chronicle of atrocities. It is a stark reminder that the international system is steadily losing either the ability—or the political will—to enforce the principles upon which it claims to rest.

For nearly eight decades, the post-1945 order has been built on a simple premise: no state, military or armed group stands above international law. The Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court were designed not merely to codify legal norms but to ensure that power remained constrained by law. Yet Gaza and the occupied West Bank increasingly suggest that these institutions have become repositories of evidence rather than instruments of accountability.

The Commission documents an occupation that has become more entrenched, settlements more aggressive and civilian suffering more routine. It accuses Israel of creating conditions in which settler violence increasingly advances political objectives, while simultaneously exposing Hamas’ systematic campaign of executions, torture and intimidation against Palestinians. Civilians find themselves trapped between state power and militant authoritarianism, with neither side exempt from legal scrutiny.

The temptation is to reduce the conflict to competing moral absolutes. Israel invokes security and the trauma of October 7; Palestinians point to decades of occupation, displacement and overwhelming military force. Both narratives contain undeniable truths. Yet neither can justify deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, collective punishment, torture or demographic engineering. International humanitarian law was never designed to validate political narratives; it exists precisely to restrain them.

The Commission’s most unsettling conclusion, however, lies beyond its catalogue of abuses. It exposes the widening gulf between documentation and accountability. The United Nations has become exceptionally proficient at recording violations through satellite imagery, digital forensics and witness testimony. Rarely has the world possessed such sophisticated investigative capacity. Yet political enforcement remains conspicuously absent.

This is the defining paradox of contemporary international governance. Never before has humanity known so much about atrocities while doing so little to stop them. Reports accumulate, emergency sessions convene, and resolutions proliferate, yet settlements continue expanding, rockets continue flying, hostages remain captive, and civilians continue paying the price. Every investigation strengthens the historical record while simultaneously exposing the institutional paralysis of those responsible for enforcing international law.

The West Bank illustrates this failure vividly. For years, settler violence was often portrayed as the work of isolated extremists beyond effective government control. The Commission challenges that narrative, suggesting instead that repeated failures to investigate attacks, prosecute offenders and protect Palestinian communities have created an environment where impunity increasingly serves broader political objectives. When intimidation systematically displaces communities, alters demographics and reshapes territory, violence becomes more than a law-and-order problem; it becomes an instrument of policy.

Equally significant is the Commission’s assessment of Hamas. While international attention has understandably focused on Israel’s military operations in Gaza, the report documents Hamas’ own use of executions, torture and public intimidation to consolidate control. These findings complicate the simplistic binary narratives that increasingly dominate global debate. Human rights cannot become conditional upon political allegiance. A legal system that excuses violations committed by one side while condemning identical conduct by another ceases to be universal. That principle now faces its greatest test.

The erosion of international credibility is not solely the consequence of events in Gaza. It also reflects a geopolitical order in which law increasingly bends before strategic interests. Nowhere is this clearer than within the United Nations Security Council. The veto, originally intended to preserve great-power consensus, has evolved into a mechanism that frequently prevents collective action precisely when humanitarian intervention is most urgently required. Whether the conflict is in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan or Myanmar, the outcome has become painfully familiar: competing resolutions, diplomatic deadlock and continued civilian suffering.

The Gaza conflict has exposed these contradictions with unusual clarity. The United States continues to balance unwavering support for Israel’s security with concern over humanitarian conditions. European governments remain divided between historical responsibility and domestic political pressure. Russia and China present themselves as defenders of international legality even as they face allegations of violating similar principles elsewhere. Across much of the Global South, these inconsistencies have reinforced a growing belief that the rules-based order operates differently depending on whose interests are involved.

Whether entirely justified or not, this perception carries enormous geopolitical consequences. For decades, Western democracies derived moral authority from the claim that international law applied equally to allies and adversaries. As that consistency comes under question, so too does the legitimacy of the institutions they helped build. In international relations, perception often shapes reality. If accountability appears selective, states begin calculating geopolitical protection rather than legal responsibility. The implications extend well beyond the Middle East.

Military planners across the world are studying Gaza not only as a battlefield but as a precedent. They are observing how urban warfare, prolonged sieges, humanitarian access and allegations of war crimes influence international diplomacy. Armed groups are making similar calculations regarding hostage-taking, coercion and information warfare. If the political costs of violating humanitarian law continue to diminish, future conflicts are unlikely to become more restrained. They will become more brutal.

History suggests that legal norms rarely disappear overnight. They erode gradually through repeated exceptions, selective enforcement and political compromise until violations become routine rather than exceptional. Gaza risks becoming one of those defining historical moments when the erosion of norms becomes unmistakable.

Perhaps the Commission’s most profound warning concerns the next generation. Palestinian children continue to grow up amid displacement, deprivation and trauma. Israeli children inherit lives shaped by terrorism, insecurity and hardened political narratives. Every year of unresolved conflict deepens mutual distrust and normalises violence as a permanent condition. Infrastructure can eventually be rebuilt. Political trust is far harder to reconstruct.

This is why reconstruction, humanitarian aid and ceasefires, while essential, cannot by themselves secure lasting peace. The international community must confront the deeper crisis of accountability. Documentation alone is insufficient. Investigations must translate into credible legal, diplomatic and political consequences. Otherwise, reports become little more than historical archives chronicling the repeated failure of international institutions.

Major powers face an equally consequential choice. They can continue treating international law as a strategic instrument selectively invoked against adversaries while shielding allies, or they can recommit to the principle that credibility depends upon consistency. That choice will determine not only the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also the survival of the broader rules-based order.

Ultimately, the Commission’s report should be remembered not simply as another account of a tragic conflict but as a warning that the post-war international system is approaching a moment of reckoning. The central question is no longer whether violations have occurred; the evidence is overwhelming. The question is whether the world still believes that international law possesses equal authority over the powerful and the powerless alike.

If the answer increasingly becomes no, the consequences will extend far beyond Gaza. Future wars will begin not with calculations of legality but with calculations of diplomatic protection. International institutions will continue producing reports and governments will continue invoking universal values, yet each failure to translate principle into action will further weaken the foundations of the international order.

The greatest casualty of Gaza, therefore, may not be confined to its devastated cities or shattered lives. It may be the quiet death of the belief that law can still restrain power. Once that belief disappears, rebuilding it will prove far more difficult than rebuilding any city reduced to rubble. (IPA Service)