You're quite right, you do need the condition G is Abelian for this particular claim. Why isn't obvious,but your question's been asked before on here. Here's the answer and several versions of the proof.
Intersection of all neighborhoods of zero is a subgroup
It's worth noting this turns out to be a special case of a more general result:
Theorem: If G is a topological group and $H$ is a subgroup of $G$, then the closure of $H$ in the topology $\bar {H}$ is also a subgroup in $G$.
Proof. Let $g,h \in\bar {H}$. Let U be an open neighborhood of the product $gh$. Let $\mu:G \times G \rightarrow$ G denote the multiplication map, which is continuous, so $\mu^{-1}(U)$ is open in GxG, and contains $(g,h)$. So, there are open neighborhoods $V_1$ of $g$ and $V_2$ of $h$ such that $V_1 \times V_2\in\mu^{-1}(U)$. Since $g,h\in\bar {H}$, then there are points $x\in V_1\cap H \neq \emptyset$ and $y\in V_2\cap H \neq \emptyset$. Thus, $x,y\in H$, we have $xy\in H$ and since $(x,y)\in \mu^{-1}(U)$ then $xy \in U$ Therefore $xy\in U\cap H$. Since $U$ was an arbitrary open neighborhood of gh, then we have $gh\in \bar{H}$. Now let $i:G \rightarrow G$ denote the inverse map, and let W be an open neighborhood of $h ^{1}$. Then $i^{-1}(W) = W^{-1}$ is open and contains h, so there is a point $z\in H\cap W^ {1}\neq \emptyset$. But this means $z^{-1}\in H\cap W\neq\emptyset$ and it implies $h^{-1}\in\bar{H}$. But this means $\bar{H}$ is a topological subgroup of G and we're done!
Note this result is perfectly general and covers the earlier claim as a special case. So the Abelian requirement isn't really needed!