The specter of an International Criminal Court (ICC) war crimes arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stirred intense debate within Jewish communities in both the United States and Israel. Many defend Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza as necessary to safeguard Israeli citizens in an ongoing conflict with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in numerous countries, including the United States and the European Union. Others, however, see potential validity in allegations of war crimes, given repeated airstrikes on densely populated refugee camps, designated evacuation routes for civilians, the use of non-precision, unguided munitions, and the toll on journalists and humanitarian relief workers. Some believe the number of killed relief workers, medical professionals, and journalists has reached record-breaking levels. The high civilian casualty rate raises the possibility of war crimes.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have published comprehensive investigations documenting incidents they characterize as war crimes in Gaza. In addition, Israeli human rights groups—including B’Tselem, Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence, Adalah, and Gisha—have also released reports and statements detailing specific violations in Gaza. Together, these organizations provide a multi-faceted perspective on the conduct of military operations in Gaza during the current conflict.

The U.S. and Israel argue that the charges are baseless, asserting that in each case, legitimate justifications for the use of force exist. Officials claim that the reported numbers of deaths, disabilities, and destruction are inflated, casualty reports have been later proven false, data is incomplete, there are differing definitions of casualties and there are conflicting narratives of the same event. I believe it is for these reasons we need to get to the truth; for the protection of both parties

At the heart of the debate is the Rome Statute, the treaty that underpins the ICC. It defines war crimes as including deliberate attacks on civilians, disproportionate use of force, and collective punishment. Critics argue that Netanyahu’s government has sanctioned military operations in Gaza that may violate these principles, while supporters contend that Israel’s actions are a measured response to the existential threat posed by Hamas.

This issue strikes a particularly sensitive chord within Jewish communities, where Israel’s national security policies are often weighed against core Jewish values, including pikuach nefesh (the sanctity of life), tikkun olam (repairing the world), and the ethical imperative to minimize harm to innocents. Reconciling these values with the harsh realities of asymmetric warfare in Gaza is an ongoing and deeply divisive challenge.

Would an ICC Trial Deliver Justice or Delegitimize the Court?

The International Criminal Court was established to hold leaders accountable for war crimes, ensuring that those in power do not act with impunity. But would putting Netanyahu on trial uphold justice—or undermine the credibility of the ICC itself?

Arguments for an ICC Trial:

  • Establishing the Truth – Some believe that Israel has not been transparent about the conduct of its military campaign, and an ICC trial could provide a full, independent investigation.
  • Holding Leaders Accountable – If Israel violated the Geneva Conventions, Netanyahu must face justice like any other leader.
  • Maintaining the ICC’s Authority – If the ICC does not act, it may never be able to prosecute future leaders for war crimes, making the legal system appear toothless.

Arguments Against an ICC Trial:

  • Singling Out Israel – Israel’s supporters argue that many nations engage in wars with high civilian casualties, yet their leaders are not prosecuted.
  • Weaponizing International Law – Some fear that the ICC has become a political tool, disproportionately targeting democratic nations while ignoring authoritarian regimes.
  • Undermining Israel’s Right to Defend Itself – If an ICC trial criminalizes military actions taken in self-defense, it could set a dangerous precedent for all nations fighting terrorism.

Would an ICC prosecution strengthen the rule of law, or would it weaken the ICC’s credibility by applying a double standard?

Is Israel Safer? And at What Cost?

There is broad agreement that Israel is safer today than it was before Hamas’s October 7 attack, which left 1,200 Israelis dead and over 200 taken hostage. The Israeli military’s extensive campaign in Gaza has significantly weakened Hamas’s operational capabilities and restored deterrence.

But does that mean Netanyahu’s strategy worked and should be applauded? Or does it mean that, while effective, his methods were excessive, reckless, or even criminal?

Supporters argue that Netanyahu’s military strategy was necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat and prevent future massacres. Critics contend that his approach has caused too much unnecessary suffering, with over 40,000 Palestinian deaths reported and entire neighborhoods in Gaza reduced to rubble.

Some believe that without an independent investigation, the full extent of Israel’s actions—and potential violations—will remain unclear. But others worry that any legal action against Netanyahu would be politicized, unfairly singling out Israel while other war zones remain ignored.

War Crimes Allegations: Examining the Evidence

Disproportionate Use of Force in Civilian Areas

During multiple operations in Gaza, human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have documented instances in which large numbers of non-combatants were killed. Reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) cite repeated strikes on residential buildings, often resulting in entire families being killed with insufficient warning or means of escape. Some strikes in the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp are another example where the civilian cost outweighs the military gain.

Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure

International law prohibits deliberate attacks on civilian objects. Groups such as B’Tselem and Amnesty International contend that the destruction of vital infrastructure—including schools, hospitals, power networks, and places of worship—exceeds legitimate military requirements and could constitute war crimes.

Collective Punishment (Blockade and Restrictions)

The blockade of the Gaza Strip—imposed by Israel (and, in part, by Egypt)—has been labeled by some human rights groups and UN bodies as a form of collective punishment, which is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Critics argue that such restrictions disproportionately harm civilians, who suffer shortages of food, water, and medical supplies.

Unlawful Killings and Extrajudicial Executions

Israel’s policy of “targeted killings”, often via drone strikes or airstrikes, has come under scrutiny. Critics argue that in some cases, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions if they bypass due legal process or fail to safeguard nearby civilians.

Multiple international organizations report that the number of humanitarian staff, medical personnel, and journalists killed in Gaza during the current Israel–Gaza war is unprecedented. Incidents in which designated shelters, ambulances, or press-marked vehicles have been hit underscore the lack of effort to protect civilians.

Western military experts argue that Israel has not employed best practices to limit civilian casualties, drawing comparisons to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The harshest critique is that “Total Victory” was achieved months ago, and the war continues due to Netanyahu’s personal political interests—an argument that, if proven, could constitute a war crime.

Conclusion: A Need for Accountability

The question of whether Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute war crimes or legitimate self-defense is deeply complex, both legally and morally. While Israel asserts its right to protect its citizens from an existential threat, the escalating civilian death toll and humanitarian crises in Gaza have raised serious concerns about compliance with international law.

Only a transparent and impartial judicial process can determine whether Israel has overstepped legal boundaries. However, the broader ethical challenge for Israel—and its supporters worldwide—is reconciling the imperative of self-defense with the principle of minimizing harm to innocents.

Regardless of whether Netanyahu faces trial, this conflict has exposed fundamental questions about modern warfare, accountability, and international law. How the world responds may shape the future of war crimes prosecution and global justice.

This post has been contributed by a third party. The opinions, facts and any media content are presented solely by the author, and JewishBoston assumes no responsibility for them. Want to add your voice to the conversation? Publish your own post here. MORE