A groundbreaking ruling that has caused a ripple effect in the world, the United Nations has placed Israel and Russia in its yearly blacklist of states that are guilty of engaging in patterns of sexual violence during wartime. Issued on May 29, 2026, this is the first time both countries will make it to the highly criticized blacklist after the UN started the tradition over fifteen years ago. Based on the report issued for the year 2025, there were a total of 9,788 cases of sexual violence in conflict documented.
This is more than just a procedural change because there has been increasing pressure on the strong countries to come under scrutiny for the violations they have committed and which have been reported for years but have never officially been recognized by the UN Security Council. The selection of two permanent members from the Security Council, who had always opposed any UN inquiry against themselves, brings up some serious issues.
The Numbers Behind the Blacklist
The statistics provided by the UN report paint a grim picture of the reality of sexual violence in today’s conflicts. Out of the more than 9,900 documented cases of sexual violence across the globe, 310 cases could be linked to Russia’s military and security forces in Ukraine, and all but three of the victims of sexual violence at the hands of Russian soldiers are male.
However, for the first time, there are 31 cases of sexual violence against Israel in Gaza and the West Bank where 14 cases involve males, 7 females, 9 males under the age of 18, and one female under 18 years old. Despite a marked difference between the numbers of verified sexual violence cases by the two nations, the decision to place Israel in the blacklist of nations with sexual abuses for the very first time is politically significant, considering the ongoing battle in Gaza and the historical ties that Israel shares with Western countries.
The difference in numbers between the two countries may be attributed not only to the scale of war or conflict involved in each country but also to the level of access to documentation that the UN investigators had to document sexual abuses in both nations.
Russia’s Pattern of Sexual Violence in Ukraine
The UN report highlights the pattern of sexual violence by the Russian military against individuals in the occupied Ukraine region, ranging from sexual assault to gang rape, genital mutilation, and electrocution of genitals. The sexual violence cited by the UN report is perpetrated against prisoners of war and civilians, with the vast majority of cases involving male prisoners of war—an issue that goes against the conventional understanding of sexual violence during conflicts being carried out against females.
This development follows years of accusations by Ukrainians and other international bodies accusing the Russian military of systematic sexual violence in regions under their control.
“The report accuses Israeli forces of abuses against Palestinian detainees. The report also documents hundreds of sexual violence cases linked to Russian forces in Ukraine. Both countries deny the allegations,”
stated a comprehensive summary by Deutsche Welle, capturing the core findings and the immediate diplomatic tension.
The sexual violence documented in Ukraine is particularly concerning because it appears systematic rather than isolated. The UN report suggests these abuses are part of a broader pattern of behavior by Russian security forces, which has persisted despite international condemnation and multiple investigations by human rights organizations.
Israel’s First Appearance on the Blacklist
The blacklisting of Israel can be said to be an important milestone in relation to the ties that exist between Israel and the United Nations concerning human rights accountability. In regard to this, Israel has been listed in the annual blacklist because of its violation of human rights involving sexual abuse against Palestinians detained in the Gaza Strip and West Bank by Israeli armed and security forces. It should be noted that these allegations have always been raised before; however, for the first time, Israel appears on the list.
However, the appropriateness of including such matters now is questionable especially because of the current crisis in Gaza where the international community has been watching Israel very closely for possible breaches of international humanitarian laws and rules relating to the protection of civilian lives and property.
“Israel rejected the findings, denied the allegations, and announced it was severing ties with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres,”
according to First Post’s coverage of the immediate aftermath. This dramatic response underscores how seriously Israel views the blacklist inclusion and the potential diplomatic consequences it may face.
The 31 verified cases, while relatively small in absolute numbers, represent documented instances where UN investigators could verify allegations despite significant access restrictions. This raises serious questions about how many additional cases remain unverified due to Israel’s continued denial of access to UN investigators.
Immediate Reactions and Diplomatic Fallout
The reactions from both countries have been quick and negative. Israel has made the drastic move of announcing its decision to sever relations with UN Secretary General, Mr. Antonio Guterres, in reaction to being blacklisted by the UN. The move is indeed a serious one considering the already strained relations between Israel and the UN. Russia has, just like Israel, denied the accusations leveled against it by the United Nations.
It has accused the UN of having political motives in blacklisting the two countries. The UN insists that all names in the list are investigated before they can be included in the list.
The broader international community has reacted with a mixture of cautious support for the UN’s accountability efforts and concern about the potential diplomatic fallout. Many Western nations, while critical of both Israel and Russia on various issues, have been hesitant to fully endorse the blacklist inclusion, particularly given that both countries are powerful actors with significant international influence.
“Israel has denied the accusations and condemned the report, which listed dozens of countries and nonstate groups as ‘credibly suspected’ of patterns of rape and sexual violence,”
reported The New York Times, highlighting the broader context of the blacklist.
What the Blacklist Actually Means
Unlike what many people think, listing an individual or a party in the UN blacklist for sexual violence does not mean that the individual or party will suffer any penalties or sanctions. The list is intended to shame the individuals and make them stop their activities while at the same time educating other member countries about the parties committing sexual violence.
Parties that appear repeatedly on this list are not allowed to participate in any peacekeeping duties in UN missions. This is quite serious for a country whose troops are sent abroad to keep peace in foreign territories.
The list is officially titled the
“List of Parties Credibly Suspected of Committing or Being Responsible for Patterns of Rape or Other Forms of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict”
and is presented annually to the UN Security Council. This formal presentation ensures that the issue remains on the agenda of the world’s most powerful diplomatic body, even if immediate action is not always taken.
The blacklist includes not only state actors like Israel and Russia but also dozens of countries and non-state groups, including Hamas, which was added after its October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. This comprehensive approach reflects the UN’s recognition that sexual violence in conflict is a global problem requiring accountability across all actors, regardless of their political status or international recognition.
The Challenge of UN Access and Verification
One of the most significant challenges in documenting sexual violence in conflict is gaining access to affected areas and victims. The UN report explicitly noted that investigators faced “continued denial of access” from authorities in both Israel and Russia, which likely means the actual numbers of sexual violence cases are higher than verified.
Such an issue is not unique only to Israel and Russia. In most conflict-related situations, many countries do not allow UN investigators free movement to ensure that there have been human rights violations. Nevertheless, the ability of UN to verify some cases within those two countries demonstrates how serious those allegations really were.
The process of verification is strict, as it involves collecting various pieces of information to back up the claims of human rights violations, such as testimonies from victims, documents from hospitals, eyewitness reports, among others. The reason for putting those two countries on the blacklist by UN shows the credibility of evidence collected.
Broader Implications for International Accountability
The inclusion of Israel and Russia on the sexual violence blacklist represents a significant test of the UN’s willingness to hold powerful nations accountable for human rights abuses. Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council, giving them veto power over any resolutions that might impose consequences for their actions.
This dynamic creates a fundamental tension in international accountability: the UN can document and expose abuses, but it often lacks the mechanisms to enforce consequences when powerful nations are involved. The blacklist thus becomes a tool of moral and diplomatic pressure rather than legal enforcement, relying on reputational damage and international public opinion to drive change.
The fact that both countries appeared on the blacklist for the first time suggests a shift in the UN’s approach to accountability, potentially signaling greater willingness to challenge powerful states on human rights issues. Whether this represents a lasting change or a one-time development remains to be seen.
The UN sexual violence blacklist has once again proven its role as both a mirror reflecting the darkest aspects of armed conflict and a catalyst for international debate about accountability, power, and the limits of global governance.
